NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NABLA ASHRAF ZEHGIR
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
Nabla Ashraf Zehgir
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS order will dispose of C. I. M. A. No. 80/1996, an appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the respondents, who
are claimants of compensation and Cross Appeal No.90/1996 filed by the
respondents for the enhancement of the award.
(2.) BOTH the appeals emanate from ah award dated 9th January, 1996 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu to the tune of Rs.
1,20,000/ -, in a claim petition entitled Nabla Ashraf Zehgir and others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. In the petitioner it was stated
that husband of the petitioner respondent died in a vehicular accident on
March 05, 1994 near Patoli Morh janipur Jammu, leaving behind his
widow -respondnet -1 and children -respondents 2 and 3. Respondent in the
claim petition pleaded that her husband died due to rash and negligent
driving of respondent -5. The petition was resisted before the Tribunal on
the grounds that the Vehicle was being plied by a person not holding a
valid license, so there has been breach of terms and conditions of the
Insurance Policy. Appellant due to that breach could not be held liable
to indemnify the payment of compensation to respondent -1 and her
children. However, issues were framed. Issue No.3 reads as follows: -
"3. Whether the insurance company is exempt from the liability to indemnify the insured, if so how ? OPR -3"
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu held this issue not proved
and decided the case against the present appellant. Present appellant has
pleaded that the driver of the vehicle has shown the license
No.2013/DTC/89 -90 alleged to have been issued by the Licensing
Authorities, Hoshiarpur, which was further alleged to have been renewed
by R. T O Jammu under renewal No.25231/TPJ dated 15/04/1989. On
verification from Licensing Authorities. Hoshiarpur, it was certified by
the said Authority that the afore -mentioned driving license was issued by
that office not in the name of the respondent -3 driver, but in the name
of Inderjit Singh. Similarly, R. T. O. Jammu also certified that renewal
stands in the name of another person, namely, Kartar Chand of Assam. It
has been further contended that the appellant filed an application on
11.12.1995 before the trial Court to call the Licensing Authorities, Hoshiarpur as a witness. But without deciding that application the trial
court decided the case itself and held the appellant liable to indemnify
the amount of compensation to the respondents, which is against law.
(3.) IN the Cross Appeal, respondents have contended that the Presiding Officer has only counted Rs. 3,000/ - as income of the deceased
of which 1/3rd was allowed to be the personal expenses of the deceased
and Rs.3,000/ - were counted as income for awarded compensation. According
to the respondent, trial court had erred in not adding Rs. 2,000/ - as
monthly pension of the deceased. That being so, award has been calculated
only Rs. 2,000/ -, which is 2/3rd of Rs. 3,000/ -.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.