High CourtsSingle Bench

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rajendra Singh And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 10 January 2018 · Citation: (2018) 01 CHH CK 0122

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sam Koshy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166, 173
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 45 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 300 words

P. Sam Koshy, J

1.

Present is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles, Act assailing the award dated 20/09/2017 passed by

the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.04/2015. Vide the said

impugned award, the Tribunal in an injury case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,54,146/- with

interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application.

2.

The contention of the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that, the vehicle at the time of accident was seized by the Election

Commission of the State and that it was being used for election purpose and therefore, if at all if, there is any liability, that liability should have been

fastened upon the State Government or the Election Commission and not upon the Insurance Company. He further contended that, the vehicle not

having a valid permit and fitness certificate so also there was an element of contributory negligence in the accident to occur.

3.

Perusal of record would show that, the Insurance Company has not taking a plea of the vehicle being in the possession of the Election Commission

and that the vehicle was being operated in election duties. Neither is there any evidence in this regard, so also there was no evidence led by the

Insurance Company to establish that, the vehicle did not have a valid permit at the time of accident and also to establish the contributory negligence if

any.

4.

In the absence of any cogent evidence led by the Insurance Company, the finding of the Tribunal cannot said to be either perverse or contrary to

the evidences which have come on record.

5.

The appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected.