Naresh Kumar Vs. Manmati

Naresh Kumar vs Manmati

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 26, 1996

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/512632

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/512632
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: N.P. Singh, J.
Decided On: Sep 26, 1996
Subject: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 2. It is well settled that while deciding an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Claims Tribunal is not required to consider the defence set up by the Insurance Company. 3. In the instant case, the claimants have clearly established that there was an accident, which resulted in t...

Key legal issue: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Naresh Kumar

Respondent

Manmati

Legal References

Reported In: I(1997)ACC102

Excerpt

- - 2. it is well settled that while deciding an application under section 140 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, the claims tribunal is not required to consider the defence set up by the insurance company. 3. in the instant case, the claimants have clearly established that there was an accident, which resulted in the death of the deceased. and holding the appellant/ owner alone liable for payment of compensation is bad in law and cannot be sustained.n.p. singh, j.1. this appeal is directed against the interim award dated 3.5.1995 passed by the second additional motor accidents claim tribunal, bilaspur in claim case no. 28/90 awarding interim compensation of rs. 15,000/-to the claimant/respondent no. 1 by holding the appellant/owner of the vehicle alone liable for payment of compensation. the respondent no. 2/united india insurance co. ltd. has been exonerated from the liability on account of the breach of the terms of the insurance policy.2. it is well settled that while deciding an application under section 140 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, the claims tribunal is not required to consider the defence set up by the insurance company. what is required to be established by the claimant is that there was an accident which resulted in the death or permanent disability to the claimants.3. in the instant case, the claimants have clearly established that there was an accident, which resulted in the death of the deceased. the accident took place on 23.3.1989, i.e., before the commencement of the motor vehicles act, 1988, which came into force on 1.7.1989 and, therefore, the liability of the insurance company is to the extent of rs. 15,000/-. it is also admitted position that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 2/insurance co. therefore, the respondent no. 2/insurance co. cannot be absolved from the liability on the ground of breach of the terms of the insurance policy. the impugned order dated 3.5.1995 exonerating the insurance co. and holding the appellant/ owner alone liable for payment of compensation is bad in law and cannot be sustained. accordingly, it is set aside and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the respondent no. 2/insurance co. is also held liable, jointly and severally, to pay compensation to the claimants.

Full Judgment

N.P. Singh, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the interim award dated 3.5.1995 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 28/90 awarding interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/-to the claimant/respondent No. 1 by holding the appellant/owner of the vehicle alone liable for payment of compensation. The respondent No. 2/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has been exonerated from the liability on account of the breach of the terms of the Insurance Policy.

2. It is well settled that while deciding an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Claims Tribunal is not required to consider the defence set up by the Insurance Company. What is required to be established by the claimant is that there was an accident which resulted in the death or permanent disability to the claimants.

3. In the instant case, the claimants have clearly established that there was an accident, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The accident took place on 23.3.1989, i.e., before the commencement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into force on 1.7.1989 and, therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company is to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-. It is also admitted position that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2/Insurance Co. Therefore, the respondent No. 2/Insurance Co. cannot be absolved from the liability on the ground of breach of the terms of the Insurance Policy. The impugned order dated 3.5.1995 exonerating the Insurance Co. and holding the appellant/ owner alone liable for payment of compensation is bad in law and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the respondent No. 2/Insurance Co. is also held liable, jointly and severally, to pay compensation to the claimants.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1996 Same Parties Naresh Kumar vs Manmati Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge N.P. Singh, J.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles