IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 176 of 2009
------
Amit Kumar... ... ... ..... ........ ... ..... Appellant
Versus
1.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
2.Patel Gope
3.Smt Sune Kui
4.Kuanwar Singh
5.Minor Palo Kui
6.Minor Duna Sirka
7.Minor Lebga Kui
8.Minor Laxman Sirka..... .... ..... ... ........ Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
------
For the Appellant: Mr. Ananda Sen
For the Insurance Company : Mr. Alok Lal
------
6/ 16.03.2010
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel
for the respondent-Insurance Company and with their consent this
appeal is disposed of at the admission stage.
We are not issuing any notice to the claimants as because
they will not be affected by the judgment and award, which is going
to be passed.
This appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle
against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Vehicle
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chaibasa in Compensation Case No. 22
of 2007 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,04,500/- and
directed the appellant-owner of the vehicle to pay the said
compensation amount on the ground that the appellant-owner of
the vehicle failed to produce the Insurance policy by which the
vehicle was said to be insured with the respondent-Insurance
Company.
The claimants are the parents and minor brothers, who have
claimed compensation on account of death of the deceased in an
accident caused by a truck. The owner of the vehicle took the plea
that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. For
better appreciation, we shall reproduce some of the paragraphs of
the impugned judgment, which will speak itself. Paragraph 11 of the
judgment reads as under:
“11. I find that O.P. No.1 has
challenged that he is not insurer of the truck
and if so the terms and conditions of policy is
to be complied and secondly O.P. No. 1 has
also challenged the validity of driving license of
the driver but on the record I find that neither
original insurance policy nor the driving license
have been proved by O.P. No. 2 & 3, when the
matter is under challenge then O.P. Nos. 2 & 3
are required to prove there but all these are
lacking on the record and this is decided
accordingly.”
The appellant-owner of the vehicle did not produce the
Insurance policy. The Tribunal, therefore, observed as under:
“As I have discussed above that O.P.
No. 2 owner and O.P. No. 3 driver although
appeared in this case have filed show cause
but they have not proved their contention
through evidence. The O.P. No. 1 Insurance
Company has challenged the insurance policy
and driving license of the driver. No paper has
been filed regarding driving license by O.P.
No. 3. So far the insurance is concerned it is
the onus of O.P. No. 2 owner to file the original
insurance paper and get it exhibited. But they
have failed to do so and this tribunal is bound
to act upon the evidence available on the
record. Since O.P. no. 2 owner and O.P. No. 3
have failed to submit papers of insurance
policy and valid driving license so that liability
to pay compensation to claimants would
devolve upon O.P. No. 2 and Insurance
Company shall not be held liable in such cases
(Vimal Karla Vrs. Madhan Lal reported in
1996 ACJ 658). The driver is not necessary
party and owner of the truck may be held liable
(2008 ACJ 838).”
Considering the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal assessed the
compensation amount and directed the appellant-owner of the
vehicle to pay the said amount of compensation.
In the instant appeal, the appellant-owner of the vehicle
reiterated that the truck was insured with the respondent- Insurance
Company. On 11.1.2010, the appeal was heard in part and Mr. Alok
Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company was
directed to seek instruction as to whether the vehicle in question
was insured with the respondent- Insurance Company. Today, Mr.
Alok Lal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on
instruction, submitted that the vehicle was insured with the
Insurance company during the relevant date of accident. Admittedly
when the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, it was
highly improbable and unjustified for the Insurance Company to
challenge that the vehicle was not insured with it, without proper
verification of their records. This practice must be stopped by the
Insurance Companies. At the same time when the vehicle was
insured then what prevented the appellant-owner of the vehicle
from producing either the original insurance policy or copy of the
insurance policy. It was equal responsibility of the owner to produce
before the Tribunal the insurance policy in support of his defence
that the vehicle was insured.
In the light of aforesaid finding, we are of the view that the
entire compensation amount shall have to be paid by the
respondent- Insurance Company. So far interest part is concerned,
the appellant-owner must be saddled with the liability of payment
of interest because of inaction on his part in not producing the
policy before the Tribunal.
This appeal is, therefore, allowed and we modify the
operative part of the judgment by holding that the Insurance
Company shall pay the entire compensation and the interest, as
awarded by the tribunal, shall be paid by the appellant-owner of the
vehicle.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
( Pradeep Kumar, J)
Alankar/