Insurer Cannot Deny Liability Without Proving Contributory Negligence, Delay In Filing FIR No GroundsTo Reject Claim: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court in a recent judgement had dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company while reaffirming that in a motor accident compensation claim case, the onus lies upon the insurance company to prove contributory negligenceJustice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, emphasized, “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.”The above ruling was delivered in the Motor Accident Claim Case arising out of an appeal filed by the insurance company challenging the award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ranchi.BackgroundAs per the factual matrix of the case, the claim case was instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- on account of death of one Sandeep Oraon in a road accident whereby his motorcycle was dashed by a speeding Truck. Allegedly the deceased died leaving behind five of his family members including his wife, minor son, daughter and parents.It was contended by the insurance company that the Tribunal did not give any finding with regard to valid license of the deceased as well as fitness of the insured vehicle. It was further contended that the offending vehicle was also implanted as its registration number was not mentioned in the FIR. The Appellant company also pointed out that there was contributory negligence on part of the deceased driver, in spite of which the Tribunal passed the compensation award. It was also contended by the insurance company that the FIR was registered after 38 days from the date of occurrence.It was further pointed out that father of the deceased was not the dependant, and in spite of that his presence was counted in determining the personal deduction. In para-17 of the judgment, it transpires that 1/4th equal share considered for personal deduction and living expenses was rightly been calculatedOn the above question of dependency calculation, the court placed while placing reliance on the judgements in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], it noted that, even if the father of the deceased was not dependent, the calculation of 1/4th equal share considered for personal deduction and living expenses was rightly been calculatedThe High Court in its judgement also noted, “In light of these documents as well as the oral evidence, 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. This court finds that the valid reason of deciding the said issue is disclosed in the judgment of the learned Tribunal, in view of that this court is not accepting the argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant.”Regarding the delayed FIR, the court observed, “the application was already made ... just one day after the accident, in view of that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company with regard to registration of the FIR is not tenable, as the chargesheet has been submitted, which has been exhibited and the accident took place and the post-mortem report was on the record.”The court upheld the award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ranchi, in the Motor Accident Claim Case, dismissing the appeal filed by the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.The Court while concluding the Order, directed, "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."Case Title: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Panchi Oraon vs OrsLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 12 Click Here To Download Judgement

Insurer Cannot Deny Liability Without Proving Contributory Negligence, Delay In Filing FIR No GroundsTo Reject Claim: Jharkhand HC

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Insurer Cannot Deny Liability Without Proving Contributory Negligence, Delay In Filing FIR No GroundsTo Reject Claim: Jharkhand HC

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers