Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Anjana & Others - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 3628 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 161 (3 January 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon.R.P.Misra, J.

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik.

The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura in MACP No. 233 of 2003 Smt. Anjana and others Versus Hari Mohan and others.

The facts arising out of the present appeal are that a claim petition was filed by the respondent Smt. Anjana wife of deceased Ravindra Kumar for compensation of Rs.10 lacs. It has been submitted that the claimant is the wife of the deceased was died in an accident by Tanker Tata 407 U.P. 85E 9159.  The aforesaid vehicle was insured by the Insurance Company.  When on 22.5.2003 at about 10.00 p.m in the night, the deceased was coming at Tanker No.UP 69 then the driver of the Vehicle No.U.P.85E 9159 who was driving the vehicle in a very negligent and rash manner dashed to the tanker and due to the aforesaid fact Ravindra Kumar has received various injuries and has died. The deceased was working in a Dairy Milk Centre. The case set up by the Insurance Company was that there is a breach of policy as the deceased was not valid occupier, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. But the Claims Tribunal without recording the aforesaid finding has come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,30,250/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition.

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that as the deceased was not a valid occupier in the vehicle, therefore, is not entitled for any compensation and the total amount is payable by the owner of the vehicle.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal.

A finding of fact has been recorded to this effect that the deceased Ravindra Kumar was an employee of Dairy Milk Center. It was his job for collecting milk from various places for the purposes of storage and distribution at Milk Centre, therefore, he cannot be treated to be an unauthorized occupier on the vehicle. A specific finding has been recorded by the Tribunal to this effect after due verification from the relevant record. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation, which has been awarded to the claimant-respondent to the tune of Rs. 2,30,000/-. Only submission made on behalf of the appellant is that a liberty to  the Insurance Company be given for making an application before the Claims Tribunal to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle.

We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention as a finding to this effect has been recorded that accident had taken place due to the negligence of the vehicle which was owned by the respondent nos.2 and 3 in the claim petition. The driver of that vehicle was a valid licensee at the time of the accident and the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. A finding to this effect has also been recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased Ravindra Kumar was an authorized occupier of the vehicle, as such, the contention of the appellant to this extent that he was not a valid passenger of the vehicle is not acceptable. In such a situation, as the Claims Tribunal has not given a liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle, therefore, at this stage we are not inclined to accept the request of the appellant. As the quantum of compensation, which has been awarded to the claimants has not been challenged, therefore, we see no illegality in the judgment and order passed by the Claims Tribunal.

The appeal has got no force and  is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.