LexORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus MEENA VARIYAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ORIENT AL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. MEENA V ARIYAL AND ORS. APRIL 2, 2007 [C.K. THAKKERAND P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] B Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Sections 147 and 166. Accident-Claim petition-Liability of insurance company-One 'S' c was employed as a Regional Manager with a company who was the owner of a motor vehicle- 'S' was provided with a car by the employer-The vehicle was insured with the insurance company in .terms of the Motor Vehicles Act-There was no special contract-The vehicle met with an accident and 'S' died-The widow and daughter of 'S' filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- D According to the claim, the deceased was driving along with his 'companion' 'MH' after completing his work for the employer-The car collided with a tree due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver-The car was being driven by 'MH' at the time of the accident-'MH' had lodged a first information report on the same day giving wrong facts to escape from any prosecution- 'MH', who was allegedly driving the car at the time of the accident, was not E impleaded-The owner of the car did not appear and did not file any written statement-The insurance company filed a written statement-it pleaded that the driver and the owner of the vehicle had colluded and the alleged driver of the car had not been impleaded and as a matter of fact the deceased himself was driving the vehicle-The Tribunal held that 'S' was driving the F vehicle and that 'S' was not holding a valid driving licence when he drove the car-Purporting to accept the version of the wife of 'S' the Tribunal awarded a certain sum as compensation-The Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to receive the amount from the owner of the vehicle, the employer, but the insurance company was not liable, since the vehicle was being driven by the deceased himself who was an employee of the owner of G the car and the policy of insurance did not cover such an employee-On appeal, the High Court simply directed the insurance company to pay the amount as ordered by the Tribunal, leaving it to the insurance company to take recourse to recover the amount from the insured in accordance with the 641 H +- 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. A directions of Supreme Court in Swaran Singh's case-Correctness of-Held: >- ~ Any Tribunal trained in law should ask the claimants to produce evidence in support of the monthly salary or income earned by the deceased from his employer Company-There is nothing in the Motor Vehicles Act which stands in the way of the Tribunal to ask for the best and acceptable evidence-The B Tribunal ought to have, in the case on hand, directed the claimant to implead 'MH' who was allegedly driving the vehicle at the time of the accident-In these circumstances, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured and is also not obliged to satisfy the award of the Tribunal/Court and then ;;._ \- have recourse to the insured, the owner of the vehicle-High Court judgment set aside. c One 'S' was employed as a Regional Manager with respondent No. 3, the owner of a motor vehicle 'S' was provided with a car by the employer. The · vehicle was insured with the appellant-company in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988. There was no special contract. The vehicle met with an accident and 'S' died. The widow and daughter of 'S' fded a claim petition under. Section D 166 of the Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. According to the claim, the deceased was driving along with his 'companion' 'MH' after completing his work for the employer. The car collided with a tree due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The car was being driven by 'Mii' at the time of the accident 'MH' had lodged a first information report on the E same day giving wrong facts to escape from any prosecution. 'MH', who was allegedly driving the car at the time of the accident, was not impleaded. The owner of the car did not appear and did not file any written statement. The insurance company filed a written statement. It pleaded that the driver and the o'Wner of the vehicle bad colluded and the alleged driver of the car had not been impleaded and as a matter of fact the decreased himself was driving the F vehicle. The Tribunal held that 'S' was driving the vehicle and that 'S' was not holding a valid driving licence when be drove the car. Purporting to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.