Facts
Two cross-appeals were filed against the award dated 25.06.2019 passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bilaspur in Case No. 161/2017
Source reference: p. 2, 3Narendra Kumar Agrawal (claimant) suffered injuries in an accident involving a trailer truck (No. CG-10/R-0766).
Source reference: p. 3The Insurance Company sought to avoid liability on the ground that the person caught at the scene and charged under Section 304-A IPC, Shiv Bhaina, did not possess a valid driving license
Source reference: p. 3Conversely, the owner contended that he had authorized one Kiran Kumar (who held a valid license) to drive, but Kiran Kumar fled after the accident, leaving the sleeper, Shiv Bhaina, to be apprehended
Source reference: p. 4The claimant sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the Insurance Company can be exonerated from liability on the ground of a breach of policy conditions regarding the driver's license
Source reference: para. 3, 62. Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable or requires enhancement
Source reference: para. 4, 10Law Applied
The Court applied the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, which established that an insurer must prove a willful breach of policy conditions by the insured and that the mere absence of a license is not a sufficient defense against third parties
Source reference: para. 7It also relied on Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy (1996) 5 SCC 21 and Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. (1977) 2 SCC 745, which affirm the doctrine of vicarious liability of the master for acts of the servant occurring within the course of employment, even if the authorized act was performed in an unauthorized or improper manner
Source reference: para. 8Reasoning
The Court observed that the Tribunal correctly relied on the testimony of the owner (Vinod Kumar Jain) and the authorized driver (Kiran Kumar) to conclude that the owner had indeed entrusted the vehicle to a licensed driver
Source reference: para. 6The Court reasoned that since the accident occurred while the vehicle was being used for the owner’s business, the owner could not escape liability to third parties even if an unauthorized person (Shiv Bhaina) was at the wheel at the specific moment of the incident
Source reference: para. 8Following Swaran Singh, the Court held that the Insurance Company failed to prove a "willful breach" by the insured, as the owner had exercised reasonable care by employing a licensed driver (Kiran Kumar)
Source reference: para. 9Regarding compensation, the Court re-evaluated the heads of medical expenses, loss of income, pain and suffering, diet, and conveyance, determining that the original award was insufficient
Source reference: para. 10Holding
The High Court dismissed the Insurance Company’s appeal (MAC No. 2201/2019) and allowed the claimant’s appeal (MAC No. 628/2020) in part
The court held that the Insurance Company remains liable as no willful breach of policy was established
Source reference: para. 9The total compensation was enhanced from ₹11,80,000/- to ₹13,80,000/-, granting an additional amount of ₹2,00,000/- to the claimant
Source reference: para. 11The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount within 45 days with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the claim application
Source reference: para. 11Original Court PDF
BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDvsNARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in