# National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Sunita & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 921
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-13
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2339 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/national-insurance-co-ltd-v-smt-sunita-ors-52599
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

10 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita & Ors.
921
averments and has placed reliance
on the assertions of facts in the written
statement and the application filed under
Order VII Rule 11 (d), therefore, cannot be
said to suffer from any patent error or
illegality.
38. In these circumstances, this
Court is satisfied that no substantial
question of law arises for consideration for
the purpose of admitting the appeal.
Consequently, the appeal does not merit
admission and is, accordingly, dismissed.
39. Counsel for the appellants, at
this stage, submits that the first appellate
Court while setting aside the order passed
by the trial Court under Order VII Rule 11
of CPC and restoring the suit to its original
number, has granted liberty to the trial
Court to proceed with the issues nos.3, 4
and 7, as preliminary issues, before
proceeding any further. He has sought to
urge that the trial Court be directed to
decide the said issues as preliminary issues
without
being
prejudiced
by
the
observations made in the judgment of the
first appellate Court.

40. In this regard, it may be stated
that the observations that have been made
by the first appellate Court are only for the
purpose of deciding the correctness of the
order passed by the trial Court, rejecting
the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of
CPC, and the case having been remanded
with liberty to the trial Court to proceed
with issues nos.3, 4 and 7 as preliminary
issues, there should not be any manner of
doubt that the trial Court would proceed
accordingly.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 921
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13 .10.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
First Appeal From Order No. 2339 of 2025

National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sunita & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Radhey Shyam

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Insurance Company was
liable to indemnify the legal heirs of the
deceased
owner-cum-driver
of
the
offending vehicle, when the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the
deceased himself, and the insurance policy
was a package policy covering personal
accident risk of the owner-cum-driver, and
whether the award of compensation by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was
legally sustainable.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss.163-A, 173
- Motor accident - Owner-cum-driver -
Negligence of owner - Package policy -
Personal accident cover - Liability of
insurer - Scope of appeal - Award
affirmed.

HELD:
If an accident is caused by owner's negligence,
then also, Insurance Co. is liable to indemnify
the legal heirs if the claim is filed under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and owner had
paid a premium for owner-cum-driver personal
accident coverage as stated in Ramkhiladi and
another vs. United India Insurance Company
and another. [Para4]

The owner had paid a Rs. 100 premium for
personal insurance. In exchange for that
premium, the policy guaranteed a risk cover
of Rs. 2,00,000 and the same amount which
was awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the
Tribunal has not erred in allowing petition and
awarding compensation according to terms and
conditions of the Insurance Policy. [Para 5 and
7] (E-14)
922 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appeal dismissed.

Case Law Cited
Ramkhiladi and another v. United India
Insurance Company and another, (2020) 2
SCC 550 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

List of Keywords
Motor accident; Owner-cum-driver; Personal
accident cover; Package policy; Liability of
insurer; Insurance contract.

Case Arising From
Judgment and award dated 24.06.2025 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etah in
Claim Petition.

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellant: Sri Radhey Shyam

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been preferred by the insurer of vehicle
Truck No. UP-82-T-3450 against the
impugned judgment and award dated
24.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Etah,
whereby
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded
in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased
Prem Narayan, who succumbed to injuries
sustained in an accident that occurred on
05.07.2016 and died on 07.07.2016.

2.
Learned
counsel
for
the
Insurance Company submitted that a very
short legal question is involved in this
appeal. Learned counsel submitted that the
owner of the Truck No. UP-82-T-3450
Prem Narayan was himself driving the
truck at the time of the alleged accident, as
such, he was not covered under the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy, but
the Tribunal has ignored this fact and has
allowed the claim petition by awarding
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the legal
heirs of the deceased owner, which is
erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

3. I have heard learned counsel for
the Insurance Company and perused the
impugned
judgment
and
documents
submitted alongwith the appeal.

4. The Apex Court in the case of
Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India
Insurance Company and another (2020) 2
SCC 550, has held that where an accident
was caused due to the negligence of the
owner of the vehicle and a claim under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is
made and if, premium has been collected
by the Insurance Company towards the
insurance of Owner-Cum-Driver of such
vehicle, then the Insurance Company is
liable to indemnify the legal heirs of such
deceased owner as per the contract of
insurance.

5. It is apparent that in the instant
case, the insurance policy was a package
policy in which the Insurance Company
collected a premium of Rs.100/- towards
personal insurance of the Owner-cumDriver of the vehicle and in lieu of it, it has
covered a risk of Rs.2,00,000/-, which is
the same amount which has been awarded
by the Tribunal in the instant case, which
cannot be said to be erroneous.

6. According to the claimants, who
are heirs of deceased owner Prem Narayan,
who was himself driving Truck No. UP 82T-3450 on the date of accident which
occurred on 05.07.2016 at about 10:00 p.m.
in village Thanapur, P.S. Narbai, District
Allahabad when suddenly, the brakes of the
truck failed, causing it to collide from
10 All. United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Rocky & Ors.
923
behind with a stationary vehicle,
resulting in grievous injuries to its owner,
Prem Narayan, who succumbed to his
injuries during treatment on 07.07.2016.
After his death, his legal heirs filed the
present claim petition.

7. In view of the above facts, the
Tribunal has not erred in allowing the claim
petition and awarding compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased
Prem Narayan according to terms and
conditions of the Insurance Policy.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts,
there is no merit in this appeal and is liable
to be dismissed at the admission stage.

9. The appeal is hereby dismissed
at the admission stage.

10. The impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal is affirmed.

11. Office is directed to remit back
the statutory deposit made by the Insurance
Company to the Tribunal concerned,
forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 923
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2387 of 2025

United India Insurance Com. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Rocky & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Arun Kumar Shukla
Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal erred in holding that accident
occurred solely due to rash and negligent
driving of tractor driver, and consequently, in
fastening liability on insurer, particularly in view
of appellant's contentions regarding contributory
negligence arising from four persons travelling
on the motorcycle, and alleged breach of policy
conditions on account of tractor being used for
non-agricultural purposes.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - The
case arises from a motor accident dated
27.02.2021 at about 3:00 p.m., wherein
the minor claimant, Rocky, aged about
seven years, was travelling along with his
minor sister and parents on a motorcycle
when a Mahindra Tractor, allegedly driven
in a rash and negligent manner, came
from
behind
and
collided
with
the
motorcycle, resulting in fracture of the
claimant's left leg, injuries to other family
members, and the grievous injury and
subsequent death (on 13.03.2021) of the
claimant's mother - FIR was lodged,
investigation culminated in a charge sheet
against the tractor driver, and before the
Tribunal the father of the claimant (PW-1)
deposed in support of the accident, while
the
owner-cum-driver
(DW-1)
denied
negligence, yet no evidence was led by the
insurer,
and
the
Tribunal,
upon
appreciation of materials on record, held
the tractor driver solely negligent and
awarded compensation of Rs. 66,036/-
with interest against the insurer.

Held: It stands established that on the date of
the incident, the claimant was travelling on a
motorcycle along with his minor sister and
parents, the vehicle being driven by his father
Sanjay Kumar (PW-1). PW-1 deposed that the
accident occurred solely due to the negligent
and
rash
driving
of
the
tractor,
which
approached from behind and collided with the
motorcycle, causing injuries to the claimant, his
minor sister, and his mother, who later
succumbed to her injuries on 13.03.2021 -