Case Note & Summary
The case involves a first appeal filed by the National Insurance Co Ltd against the judgment and award dated 18.01.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.2399 of 2003. The Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.8,98,500/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The accident occurred on 04.06.2003 when the claimant was returning from Ambaji Temple to Khedbrahma in a jeep bearing registration No.GJ-8-A-8960. The driver of the jeep drove at high speed in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road, colliding with a Matador bearing registration No.GJ-3-V-5711. The claimant sustained several injuries including fractures and filed a claim petition seeking Rs.15,00,000/-. The Insurance Company argued that the vehicle was used for hire and purchase, thus not covered under the policy, and that no premium of Rs.153/- was charged to cover the claimant's risk. The Tribunal, however, found that the Insurance Company had charged Rs.153/- as premium to cover the risk of the claimant. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the vehicle was used for hire and purchase. The court noted that the policy did not reflect the sum of Rs.153/- but the Tribunal's finding was based on evidence. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's award. The decision reinforces the principle that the burden of proving breach of policy conditions lies on the Insurance Company.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Insurance Policy - Breach of Policy Conditions - The Insurance Company contended that the vehicle was used for hire and purchase, which was not covered under the policy. However, the Tribunal found that a premium of Rs.153/- was charged to cover the risk of the claimant. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding, noting that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the vehicle was used for hire and purchase. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation when the vehicle was allegedly used for hire and purchase, and whether the premium of Rs.153/- was charged to cover the risk of the claimant.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Kheda at Nadiad dated 18.01.2012 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.2399 of 2003.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Insurance Policy
- Breach of Policy Conditions
- Premium for Risk Coverage
- Liability of Insurance Company
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (02) 1182
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1313 of 2012
Mr. Alkesh N Shah (for Appellant), Mr. Ajay L Pandav (for Defendant No.1), Ms. Archana R Acharya (for Defendant No.2.1)
National Insurance Co Ltd
Manishbhai Ramanbhai Patel & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a claim petition for compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
Remedy Sought
The appellant-Insurance Company sought to set aside the award of compensation on the ground that the vehicle was used for hire and purchase, not covered under the policy.
Filing Reason
The claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Kheda at Nadiad partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.8,98,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.
Issues
Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation when the vehicle was allegedly used for hire and purchase?
Whether the premium of Rs.153/- was charged to cover the risk of the claimant?
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Alkesh N Shah, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that the vehicle was used for hire and purchase, therefore the claim is not covered under the policy. He further submitted that no premium of Rs.153/- was charged to cover the risk of the claimant, and the sum of Rs.153/- is not reflected in the policy.
Ratio Decidendi
The Insurance Company failed to prove that the vehicle was used for hire and purchase, and the Tribunal's finding that a premium of Rs.153/- was charged to cover the risk of the claimant was upheld. The burden of proving breach of policy conditions lies on the Insurance Company.
Judgment Excerpts
The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on 04.06.2003, the claimant was returning from Ambaji to Khedbrahma after offering prayers at Ambaji Temple.
Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was used for hire and purchase, therefore, the claim of the claimant is not covered under the policy.
Procedural History
The claimant filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.2399 of 2003 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Kheda at Nadiad. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.8,98,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum on 18.01.2012. The Insurance Company filed the present first appeal against that award.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
