RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MINAKSHI NAYAK
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
Biswanath Rath,J. -
(1.) This Appeal involves an award/judgment passed by the 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri in M.A.C. No.312/ 439 of 2011/2010.
(2.) There is a reporting that A.D. from Respondent No.5 has not returned. For no return of the Brief from Respondent No.5, this Court finds, notice on Respondent No.5-owner is sufficient. Therefore, this matter is taken up for hearing and passing this judgment on the basis of submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4-Claimants.
(3.) Factual background involving the case is that on 15.11.2010 at about 10 A.M. while the deceased was standing near Village-Alipada on N.H.-203(B) running in between Puri and Brahmagiri to the left side of the road along with others in order to proceed to Puri, the offending bus bearing Regn. No.OR02-K-2414 came from Brahmagiri side towards Puri being driven in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the front left bumper of the offending bus dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact on the accident, the deceased fell down and the bus ran over him causing his death on the spot itself. Body of the victim was taken to the D.H.H., Puri by the local people where the doctor declared him dead. Involving the incident Puri Sadar P.S.Case No.217 of 2010 was instituted against the Driver of the offending bus. On the premises that the deceased was healthy, active person and working as a LIC Agent in Puri Branch and getting a monthly commission of Rs.15,000/- and this apart the deceased was also getting Rs.3000/- per month from Tuition and his total income was Rs.18,000/- per month, the Claimants claimed that out of the aforesaid income, the deceased was contributing a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards maintenance of the Claimants. Meeting with the untimely death of the deceased at the age of 40 years, the Claimants being the legal heirs filed the Claim Application bearing MAC No.439/2010 but subsequently on being transferred, it was registered as MAC No.312/439 of 2011/2010. Based on no appearance in spite of notice, the Owner-Opposite Party No.1 therein was set ex parte. Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company filed Written Statement where while denying all the allegations made in the Claim Objection and calling upon the Claimants to prove the same by documentary evidence, it also denied that the Policy disclosed has nothing to do with the accident on the premises that on the request for Policy No.2402702340000581, Opposite Party No.1 issued a cheque in favour of the Gramya Bank on 1.9.2010 for a premium of Rs.17,522/- but it was dishonoured under intimation of insufficient money in the Account. The Insurance Company also claimed that based on such intimation from the Bank, the Insurance Company issued a letter on 12.10.2010 intimating both Opposite Party No.1-Owner as well as the R.T.O. itself invalidating the Insurance Policy right from its inception, i.e., on 4.9.2010. It is on the premises that there was no valid insurance on the date of accident, the Insurance Company disowned the liability.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.