Professional Documents
Culture Documents
V.
ASHALATA BHOWMIK AND ORS.
…..
(2014)9SCC341
Hanumanagouda
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. etc.
Facts..
• Due to accident involving a goods vehicle and a
lorry, two persons died and others received
injuries.
• In respect to the claim filed by dependents and
legal representatives of deceased Hanumanth,
• the Tribunal allowed their claim and held them
entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/- from
the owner-cum-driver of the lorry, and also from
Respondent-Insurance Company as they were
held responsible jointly and severally.
Before High court
• The High Court in appeal
• ……..held that the Award was bad in law because
the deceased was in a clerical cadre working as a
Gumasthe
• …….accompanying the goods in transit for the
purpose of delivery
• and as such he could not be covered by the clause
under which premium was paid for covering the
risk of the persons employed in connection with the
operation of loading and unloading of the goods.
Supreme court….
• The High Court has clearly fallen in error in holding
that the insurer is not liable in respect of death of
Hanumanth.
• The clause-"persons employed in connection with
the operation" is clearly over and above the
coverage provided by the policy to "persons
employed in connection with loading/unloading of
motor vehicle".
• As Gumasthe, the deceased was accompanying the
goods in transit for the purpose of delivery of goods
Cont…
• This has been accepted by the High Court.
Obviously, as Gumasthe the deceased
would be covered by the expression
"persons employed in connection with
operation of motor vehicle" The operation
of the aforesaid clause has wrongly been
restricted and limited only to persons
employed in connection with
loading/unloading of the motor vehicle.
Finally….
M. V. Insurance
Case-law
50
Motor insurance
• Insurance : Insurance is the pooling of premium and sharing of
losses.
Principles of Insurance
• Utmost Good Faith
•Insurable Interest
•Principle of Indemnity
•Principle of Contribution
•Principle of Subrogation
• ..insurance…….
• a protection against losses
• arising out of the use of motor vehicle
Motor insurance
56
Cont…
e. By flood, typhoon, hurricane, storm,
tempest, inundation, cyclone, hail storm,
frost.
f. By accidental external means.
g. By malicious act.
h. By terrorist activity.
i. While in transit by road, rail, inland water
way, lift, elevator or air.
Motor insurance
Exclusions :
• Contractual liability.
MOTOR VEHICLES
PRIVATE COMMERCIAL
VEHICLES VEHICLES
PASSENG
GOODS MISC.
TWO ER MOTOR
PVT CARRYIN VEHICLE
WHEELE CARRYIN TRADE
CARS G S
RS G
Commercial Vehicles :
• Protection of…
• Loss of damage…….by an accident or
loss by theft
• Risk of liability…
• That arises…..when it hurts….some body
Loss of motor car
Shamanna
v.
Divisional Manager, the Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
AIR 2018 SC 3726
Principle…
******
Limitation
• No application for compensation shall be
entertained
• unless it is made within six months of the
occurrence of the accident.
• Appeal
• An appeal against the order of the Claims Tribunal
lies to the High Court and may be filed within
ninety days from the date of the award.
• No appeal shall lie against an award if the amount
in dispute in the appeal is less than 10,000 rupees.
Under s.140
Malati Sardar
Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited and
Ors.
Facts…
• Claimant son……..who is working as a school
teacher….. hit by Bus (insured with the Respondent
company) at Hoogly, in the State of West Bengal
and died.
• He was travelling on motor cycle of his colleague as
a pillion rider.
• ………..filed an application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation before
the Tribunal at Kolkata.
Cont…
• Rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the bus having been established,
• the Tribunal, applying the multiplier of 13 on
account of age of the Appellant being 47
years,
• and taking into account the income of the
deceased and other relevant factors, fixed
compensation of Rs. 16,12,200
Before HC
• The Respondent company preferred an
appeal before the High Court against award
passed by Tribunal on the only ground of
lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
• The objection …….that the accident took
place at Hoogly and the claimant resided at
Hoogly.
• Office of the Respondent being at Kolkata
did not attract jurisdiction of the Kolkata
Tribunal.
…..
• The High Court upheld the objection
of the Respondent and allowed the
appeal of the Respondent company
• and directed refund of the amount
deposited/paid, if any, to the
Respondent company.
S.C….
• the High Court was not justified in
setting aside the award of the Tribunal
• in absence of any failure of justice even
if there was merit in the plea of lack of
territorial jurisdiction.
• Moreover, the fact remained that the
insurance company which was the main
contesting Respondent had its business
at Kolkata.
Cont….
• The provision in question, in the present
case,
• is a benevolent provision for the victims of
accidents of negligent driving.
• The provision for territorial jurisdiction has
to be interpreted consistent with the object
of facilitating remedies for the victims of
accidents.
Finally...
• Hyper technical approach in such matters can
hardly be appreciated.
• There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a
place where the insurance company, which is the
main contesting parties in such cases, has its
business.
• In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party.
There is no failure of justice.
• The High Court failed to notice the provision of
Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure.