Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 17. In view of the above decision, it is evident that in case of third party risks, the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others (supra) would apply, and the insurer has to indemnify the amount to the third party and thereafter may recover the same form the insured. 18. In Prem Kumari and others Vs. Prahlad Dev and others, 2008(1) T.A.C. 803 (S.C.), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have reiterated the view expressed in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut case (supra) explaining the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swarn Singh and others (supra), and held as under (paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said TAC): "8. The effect and implication of the principles laid down in Swarn Singh's case (supra) has been considered and explained by one of us (Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat) in National Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 S.C.C. 700 : 2007 (2) T.A.C. 398. The following conclusion in para 38 are relevant: "38. In view of the above analysis the following situations emerge: (1) The decision in Swaran Singh's case (supra) has no application to cases other than third party risks. (2) Where originally the license was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. (3) In case of third-party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount, and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured. (4) The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act. 9. In the subsequent decision Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and Others, (2007) 5 S.C.C. 428: 2007 (2) T.A.C. 417, which is also a two Judge Bench while considering the ratio laid down in Swaran Singh's case (supra) concluded that in a case where a person is not a third party within the meaning of the Act, the Insurance Company cannot be made automatically liable merely by resorting to Swaran Sing's case (supra). While arriving at such a conclusion the Court extracted the analysis as mentioned in para 38 of Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) and agreed with the same. In view of consistency, we reiterate the very same principle enunciated in Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) with regard to interpretation and applicability of Swaran Singh's case (supra)." (Emphasis supplied) 19. In view of the above, it is evident that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in directing the Insurance Company/ Appellant to make deposit of the amount of compensation and recover the same from the insured person i.e. the owner of the vehicle in question - respondent no.3 herein. 20. After making the deposit of the amount, as directed by the impugned award, it will be open to the Insurance Company/ Appellant to recover the same from the insured person i.e. the owner of the vehicle in question - respondent no.3 herein by moving appropriate application before the Tribunal in this regard. 21. It is made clear that in case the claimants-respondents or the owner of the vehicle in question/ respondent no.3 herein files an Appeal against the impugned award, it will be open to the
3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Smt. Guddi Devi and others 1033 Insurance Company/ Appellant to contest the same on the grounds legally open to it. 22. The amount of 25,000/- deposited in this Court while filing the present Appeal will be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted towards the amount to be deposited by the Insurance Company/ Appellant, as per the directions given in the impugned award. 23. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company/Appellant is dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J. THE HON’BLE RAJESH CHANDRA, J. First Appeal From Order No. 3049 of 2009 National Insurance Company Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Smt. Guddi Devi & others …Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Saral Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section-170, readwith 149-Appeal by insurance Company-Challenging the quantum of award-application by insurance Company already rejected by claim tribunal-held-quantum of compensation can not be questioned by insurance company. Held: Para 15 In our opinion, as the application of the Appellant-Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 was rejected by the Tribunal, it is not open to the Appellant-Insurance Company to raise the question of quantum of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned award. The pleas raised in this regard by Sri Saral Srivastava, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company cannot, therefore be considered. (Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.) 1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order /award dated 25.7.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mainpuri in Claim Petition No. 318 of 2006, filed by the claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 7 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of the death of Ram Prakash in an accident which took place at about 5.45 PM on 14.5.2006. 2. It was, inter-alia, averred in the Claim Petition that on 14.5.2006 at about 5.45 PM, the deceased Ram Prakash with his wife Smt. Guddi Devi, Balister Singh, Prem Chandra, Raj Kishore and others while returning after attending a marriage ceremony in village Dalelpur at the place of the sister of the deceased,was waiting for vehicle on the road -side on GT Road, Kurawali-Etah Marg, a Mini Truck Tata 407 DL-1LG 391,which was coming from the direction of Etah and was being driven by the Driver rashly and negligently, hit the said Ram Prakash, resulting in his death on the spot. The Driver ran away with the said Mini Truck, i.e., the vehicle in question from the spot. The accident was witnessed by Smt.Guddi Devi and others. The First Information Report was lodged in regard to the accident, which was registered as Case Crime No. 174 of
Page 1 and 2:
3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 21 and 22: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24: 3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26: 3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 57 and 58: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 59: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 99 and 100: 3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 107 and 108: 3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110: 3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 111 and 112:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 113 and 114:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 115 and 116:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?