Motor Accident: Jharkhand High Court Upholds ₹50.90 Lakh Compensation To Kin Of Deceased Lawyer

The Jharkhand High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance, challenging an award of ₹50,90,176 in compensation to the family of a deceased lawyer who was killed in a road accident, while reaffirming that non-compliance with permit regulations does not constitute a fundamental breach of an insurance policy.Justice Subhash Chand presiding over the case observed, “The claim petition cannot be said to be fake reason being in this case the owner of the Tempo was also impleaded as party and the owner of the Tempo was very much aware that he had no route permit of the Tempo and the liability would ultimately be fixed upon the owner. Had there been any connivance of the owner of the driver with the claimants he would not at all have permitted the claimants to falsely implicate his Tempo in the alleged accident.”“In this case the learned Tribunal has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was also having the valid and effective driving licence and the insurance was also valid and effective on the date of accident; but the very offending Tempo was plied without permit. As such the ultimate liability would be of the owner and the Insurance Company has been directed to pay the compensation amount with the liberty to recover the same from the owner. The same can be done by the learned Tribunal because there was no fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.”As per the factual matrix of the case, the deceased, a lawyer by profession, was fatally injured in an accident near the Bhowra Taxi stand when a rashly and negligently driven Tempo collided with him. He was transported to Jalan Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. An FIR was lodged under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC against the Tempo driver, citing rash and negligent driving as the cause of the accident.At the time of his death, the deceased was 34 years old and left behind his wife, Munni Kumari (28 years old), two minor sons, Ankit Kumar (10 years old) and Anshu Kumar (8 years old), as well as his parents, Kapildeo Prasad and Amola Devi. His income for the assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18 was Rs. 1,85,050/-, Rs. 2,35,000/-, and Rs. 2,98,820/-, respectively. The vehicle involved was owned by Md. Mosinuddin of Bhaga Bazar, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, and insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. under policy number OG-18-2441-1803-00000935. The compensation amount was to be paid accordingly.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after considering the submissions, awarded Rs. 50,90,176/- to the claimants and directed the insurance company to recover the amount from the vehicle's owner. The insurance company, aggrieved by this award, has filed the present appeal.The Court, in its Judgement, observed that prior to the 2019 Amendment, Section 158(6) and post-amendment Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandated that the investigating Police Officer must prepare an accident information report to aid the settlement of claims. This report is to be completed within three months and submitted to both the Claims Tribunal and the Insurance Company.The Court noted that, in the present case, there had been no compliance with Section 158(6) and Section 159 of the M.V. Act. The Court then addressed whether this noncompliance rendered the claim petition fraudulent.The Court further noted that the FIR in this case was lodged 20 days after the accident, against unknown persons. During the investigation, two eyewitnesses came forward and testified, stating that the accident occurred in their presence due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Tempo.The Court stated that while the delay in lodging the FIR could raise some doubts regarding the veracity of the accident, it could not be considered fatal to the claim. The Court also noted that because the FIR was lodged against unknown persons, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) could not provide information to the Tribunal or the Insurance Company. However, during the investigation, the I.O. interrogated the two eyewitnesses and, based on both documentary and ocular evidence, filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the vehicle. This information was not communicated to the Tribunal or the Insurance Company.The Court observed that it is a settled principle that in motor accident claim petitions, the strict rules of the Evidence Act, CPC, or Criminal Procedure Code do not apply. Additionally, the standard of proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is applicable in criminal cases, is not required in motor accident claim petitions, where the burden of proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities.The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to direct the appellant Insurance Company to pay and recover the compensation, noting, “The learned Tribunal had directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay and recover the compensation on the ground that the said offending Tempo was driven without...

Motor Accident: Jharkhand High Court Upholds ₹50.90 Lakh Compensation To Kin Of Deceased Lawyer

Bhavya Singh

Tags