Onus Lies Upon Insurance Company To Prove Contributory Negligence: Jharkhand HC Upholds MACT Award

The Appeal before the High Court was preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi asserted, “...the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that none of the terms and conditions of the policy was missed and it was decided against the insurance company.”

Advocate Ravi Hegde represented the Appellant while Advocate Nikhil Ranjan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The claim case was instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a compensation amount of Rs. 21,00,000 on account of the death of one Sandeep Oraon. It was the informant’s case that on May 27, 2022, Oraon after casting his vote at Chamranga Booth was returning home on his Motorcycle when the motorcycle was dashed by a speeding Truck which being driven by the driver of the offending vehicle. Oraon sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to the Hospital where he was declared dead. The deceased died leaving behind his wife, minor son, daughter and parents.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the Tribunal considered the oral evidence of the witness as well as documentary evidence, the contents of the FIR, chargesheet, post-mortem report and found that the accident took place and the deceased sustained fatal injury. The Owner of the truck in question appeared before the Tribunal and he admitted about the vehicle, which was driven by the driver Ajit Minz and the said vehicle was insured. The driver was having a valid driving license, which was exhibited before the Trial Court. The Photo copy of the registration certificate of the offending vehicle as well as the the insurance policy issued by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. were also exhibited.

The Bench thus affirmed that in light of these documents as well as the oral evidence, the Tribunal concluded that none of the terms and conditions of the policy was missed and it was decided against the insurance company. The Bench found that the valid reason of deciding the said issue was disclosed in the judgment of the Tribunal. The Bench further held, “So far as the contributory negligence is concerned, no evidence was led and further the onus lies upon the insurance company to prove the same, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Siddique & Anr. Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2020) 3 SCC 57.”

So far as the registration of the FIR was concerned, the Court noted that the application was made just one day after the accident. In view of such facts, the Bench held that the contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company with regard to registration of the FIR was not tenable, as the chargesheet had been submitted and the post-mortem report was on the record. It was also held that even if the father was not dependent, 1/4th share had rightly been calculated in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.(2009).

Thus dismissing the Appeal, the Bench concluded, “The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company shall be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal and that amount will be utilized in satisfying the award in favour of the claimants and if the entire amount has already been deposited by the said insurance company, the statutory amount will be refunded back by the learned Tribunal to the insurance company.”

Cause Title: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Panchi Oraon W/o of Late Sandeep Oraon & Ors. (Case No.: M.A. No. 288 of 2024)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Ravi Hegde

Respondents: Advocate Nikhil Ranjan

Click here to read/download Order