United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Union of India & Others

The appellant/insurer has challenged the award granted to the claimant Union of India/ 7th Battalion Indo Tibet Border Police, Mirthi, District Pithoragarh vide judgment and order dated 18.3.2015 by the learned District Judge, Almora giving vent to the facts. The Maruti Gypsy No. HR-69A-1200 owned by I.T.B.P. and driven by Shri Mahendra Singh was dashed by Isher Canter UK04CA-1268 on way from Ranikhet to Pithoragarh. As a consequence, the I.T.B.P. driver Shri Mahendra Singh lost his life beside massive damage to the Maruti Gypsy which was sent by its owner for due repairing which costs Rs. 3,08,889/- So, the claim compensation petition no. 9/2013 was instituted, which as such has been granted by the learned Tribunal against the appellant insurer of the Isher Canter Truck.

The learned counsel of the appellant has vehemently relied upon the precedent of the coordinate Bench of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gyan Lal & Another reported in 2008 (2) U.D. Page 189.

In such case the learned Judge of this court held that the death of the mule by accident of the offending bus cannot be termed within the purview of the ''person'' and at the most it can be classified in the category of a damage of any property of a third party and as per section 147 (2) (b) a limit of Rs. 6,000/- is contemplated for awarding the compensation in respect of damage to any property of a third party.

On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondent Union of India/ITBP has drawn the attention of this court towards the terms of the agreement enumerating the limits of liability which entails a clause specifying that where damage to third party property is occurred then the insurer shall be liable to the extent of Rs. 7,50,000/- for one claim or series of claims arising out of one event. Regardfully, I observe that in Gyan Lal case, the terms of the policy of the insurance were not disclosed for any reason either by the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. or by way of suo moto attention of the learned Judge of the coordinate Bench of this court. Therefore, probably it would have been the reason that the learned Judge as per section 147 (2) (b) kept the maximum liability confined upto Rs. 6,000/- for the damages to the third party property.

Here in the case in hand the terms of the policy have been highlighted as indicated above and in my considered view, the respondent is certainly a third party and the damage has been caused to the property owned by such party on account of the rash and negligent driving of the canter truck. It is evident because the driver of the canter truck Mr. Chandan Singh as has been evinced in the impugned judgment confessed the guilt in the trial before Magistrate and convicted. Hence, where the insurer of the canter truck has undertaken to satisfy the compensation upto the extent of Rs. 7,50,000/- then the grant of award to the tune of 3,08,889/- which is the bill of repairing of a authorized garage is quite justified.

I feel there is not force in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.