Page 34 - Insurance Times March 2016 Sample

The petitioner alleged in the writ petition that these
accidents have taken place on account of the explosion of
explosive materials and ammunitions and that in such
accidents property worth several crores has been lost. The
petitioner stated that such accident posed a serious threat
to the life and property of the public and his contention was
to cover the risk to the public from such hazardous activities did not dismiss the writ petition.
carried on in the Ordnance Factories and Depots, through
proper Public Liability Insurance policy as per the provisions Case Study 2; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs
in the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 and the Rules
1991 to ensure safety for the public and for furnishing of
information to the Central Government; but these
provisions of law are not being complied with by the
respondents. The petitioner therefore, prayed for
appropriate writs /directions to the respondents to ensure
compliance with the said provisions of law.
At the hearing of the writ petition, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents raised an objection
saying that the writ petition was not filed by the petitioner
in the public interest but for oblique motive to settle his
personal scores. He submitted that the petitioner was
working as Charge-man Grade II in the respondent No. 3
Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur, and a disciplinary proceeding was
initiated against him and a penalty of compulsory
retirement was imposed on him with effect from 27-11-
2001. He submitted that after his compulsory retirement,
the petitioner filed this petition on unsubstantiated
allegations and frivolous grounds on account of personal
grudge. The petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that
he filed the PIL bona fide to ensure the safety of public
through compliance of the Public Liability Insurance Act
1991 and Manufacture, Storage & Import of Hazardous
Chemical Rules 1989 by the respondents.
The Hon'ble Court considered the aforesaid submissions
made by the petitioner and the learned counsel of the
respondents and observed that the Court should not go into
the allegations made by the petitioner which are disputed
by the respondents in the PIL. But with a view to ensure
that public safety is not in jeopardy, the Court must inquire
and decide whether the provisions of the PLI Act1991 and
the Rules 1991 were duly complied with by the respondents.
The exercise by the Court in this PIL was all the more
necessary considering the fact that the life and property of
the public are in great danger on account of use of explosive
materials in the establishments of the respondent and
during transportation and storage of arms and ammunitions
34 The Insurance Times, March 2016
to places outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and
accidents are alleged to have taken place in some of these
establishments. Rule of law further mandates that the law
made by the Parliament and the rules made thereunder for
safety and for compensation for loss of life and property due
to accident are duly observed. The Hon'ble Court, therefore,
Biman Prasad Barkakati And Ors. (2008)
The gas tanker (Reg No NLW-337) was insured with the
appellant, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. The
accident took place on 1.11.98 at Khanapara, Guwahati
when the said gas tanker loaded with inflammable materials
suddenly burst and the inflammable splinters spreader from
the offending gas tanker flew towards the veterinary college
hostel campus and struck the students who were in the
hostel campus and others resulting in burning injuries.
The claimants filed the claim cases claiming compensation
under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kamrup,
Guwahati against the appellant insurance company and the
owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the gas tanker having
registration No. NLW-337. The learned tribunal passed
order dated 12.7.2000 holding that the benefit of no fault
liability should be available to the claimants and accordingly
directed to make payment of no fault liability of Rs. 50,000/-
in the case of the death of the victim and no order was
passed for payment in the case of injuries.
Against the said order dated 12.7.2000 passed in MAC No.
450/99, MAC No. 12/99, MAC No. 827/99, MAC No. 693/99,
MAC No. 339/99 and 400/2000, the appellant insurance
company filed civil revision petitions being CRP No. 369/2000,