UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COM. LTD. Vs. CHANDA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal assailing the award passed by the learned II nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh passed in Claim Case No. 183/2024, dtd. 20/2/2025, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed award to the tune of Rs.15,16,072.00 with interest @ 6 % per annum and fastened liability with rider & owner of the offending vehicle with stipulation of pay and recover.

(2.) Facts in brief are that on 31/7/2024, at about 15.30hrs., the rider of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-13-AY-6543 by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the vehicle (CG-11-AT-2022), as a result, deceased Sanjay Kumar Uraon, fell down, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to it. The Claimants, who are the parents & siblings of the deceased, filed a claim case under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.78,86,000.00. The insurance company filed a reply and took a plea that the riders of both motorcycles were not wearing helmets at the time of the accident and both motorcycles were being driven in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Rules. It is also stated that the riders of both motorcycles did not possess effective and valid driving licences; therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the award. The rider and owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter the award was passed.

(3.) Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the riders of both motorcycles were not using helmets, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have held the rinders guilty of negligence. She would further contend that the deceased as well as the rider of other motorcycle did not produce driving licences before the learned Tribunal to establish that they were not riding in breach of the insurance policy conditions. She would also submit that the learned Tribunal ignored these facts and wrongly applied the principle of "pay and recover." She would contend that the learned Tribunal should have fastened the liability with the rider & owner of the offending vehicle; thus, she prayed that the appeal may be allowed.