UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DHARMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the award dated 8.5.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer in Accident Claim Case No. 126 of 1996, by which the Tribunal passed the award of Rs. 1,63,000 and held that the appellant insurance company is liable to make payment of the above amount. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

(2.) Being aggrieved against the above award, the appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., had preferred this appeal on the ground that the appellant insurance company is not liable for the award amount because of the fact that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy inasmuch as that the vehicle which is involved in the accident was a private Jonga jeep and it was insured as a private Jonga jeep but the same was used as a taxi for taking the passengers on hire or reward. For this purpose, learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgments reported in: (1) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Babu Lai, 1998 ACJ 67 (Rajasthan); (2) Gyaso Bai v. Mahendra Singh, 1999 ACJ 1594 (MP); (3) Muthu Thangiah Thevar Rice Mill v. Mariyayee, 1997 ACJ 919 (Madras); (4) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dhanalakshmi, 1998 ACJ 715 (Karnataka); (5) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gian Chand, 1997 ACJ 1065 (SC); (6) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe, 1996 ACJ 253 (SC).

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that it is an admitted case of the claimants that the vehicle involved in this accident was taken on hire and, therefore, the Tribunal should have exonerated the appellant, for which, the learned counsel for the appellant strongly relied upon the statement of AW 1 Tulsa Ram who is son of Pratap Ram (deceased), who died in this accident caused by the above Jonga jeep. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a line of the statement of witness AW 1 Tulsa Ram wherein it is mentioned that "mere pitaji gadi kirayen par karke lekar gaye the". He further relied upon the following para of the statement of this witness: