RANCHI, India, Nov. 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in MACT Case No. 36/2009 (45 of 2012), whereby and whereunder, the liability to pay compensation has been fixed on the Insurance Company.

2. Tribunal recorded the finding of fact with regard to factum of accident, in which deceased Ramashray Yadav while being on duty at a check post was overrun by a Truck bearing Registration No. UP 67C 5929 which was carrying coal at the time of accident.

3. It is not in dispute that the said offending vehicle was under the insurance cover of the appellant Insurance Company.

4. The instant misc. appeal has been preferred on two counts. Firstly, the vehicle was a commercial vehicle and was being plied without a valid permit which resulted in fundamental breach of the policy of the insurance under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act and, therefore, it is contended that the Insurance Company was absolved from any liability to pay compensation or to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Secondly, it is argued that the vehicle was carrying coal without any valid paper, meaning thereby, it was being used for commission of an offence and when the police personnel signaled it to stop, it was overrun. In this view of the matter, it was the owner/driver of the vehicle who was solely responsible to pay the compensation amount and not the appellant Insurance Company. This being so, it not only breach of insurance policy, but will also render the contract of insurance as void ab initio because of the illegality and the owner will be liable for it. It is also submitted that the transit challan was also not produced which was mandatory as per Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulations, 2005.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant is before this Court and has defended the impugned order.

6. So far the owner of the vehicle is concerned, he was impleaded in the misc. appeal as respondent no. 4 and Vakalatnama has already been filed on his behalf but he had neither appeared before the Tribunal nor before this Court.

7. This Court is of the view that owner of the vehicle being impleaded as a party, the onus to lead evidence that it was plying under a valid permit, was on him. Having failed to lead any evidence in this regard, it naturally follows that the vehicle was driven without any valid permit resulting in fundamental breach of the term of insurance policy under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act and will consequently have a right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle.

8. It cannot, however escape from the liability to pay compensation to the Petitioner on the ground that the offending vehicle was illegally transporting coal. Claimants in the present case are indisputably the heirs and descendants of the constable who lost his life while attempting to stop the truck which was transporting coal without any valid document. A separate police case was registered being Bishnugarh PS Case No. 32 of 2009 under Section 304 and 353 of the IPC.

9. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the said case has ended in conviction. The permit was also produced which was marked as Ext.4. There is a presumption of innocence so far the guilt is not proved. The plea, therefore that the vehicle was illegally transporting coal, therefore it was absolved of any liability to pay compensation is therefore not tenable. The argument regarding murder cannot be considered at this stage as the case has been registered under Section 304 and not under Section 302 of the IPC.

10. I do not find any infirmity in the award of compensation.

Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.

Statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants and adjusted against the final compensation amount.

I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.