Kaycee Road Linkers vs Sucha Singh and Others

G.R. Majithia, J.—The appellant has challenged the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short the Tribunal) awarding compensation to the tone of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants.

The facts :--

Hardeep Singh (since deceased) was in the employment of the appellant. He died on May 15, 1986 when he was bringing a new factor bearing temporary No. 11565 This tractor had not been sold and was sent by the H.M.T Tractors Ltd., Pinjore to their authorised dealer M/s Hind Auto Motors, Barnala (Respondent No. 5). On his way from Mohali to Barnala, when the deceased reached near the village Badrukhan, the tractor came to kocha road and turned turtle in the ditches due to some mechanical defect The deceased was 21 years of age on the date of the accident and was earning Rs. 650/- per mensem. The tractor is alleged to have been insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. The Mall, Ambala Cantt. (Respondent No. 4).

The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence adduced, held that the appellant and M/s Hind Auto Motors, Barnala (Respondent No. 5) were liable to pay the compensation amount.

The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ambala Cantt. and it is liable to pay the compensation amount.

Alongwith the appeal, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151, CPC (which was numbered as C. M. No. 453-C II of 1988) was also moved for placing on record the insurance policy issued by the United India Insurance Company called "Workmen''s Compensation Policy". The fate of the appeal depends upon the decision of this application. The appellant could succeed in its submission that the liability under the Workmen''s Compensation policy has to be discharged by the insurance Company if it could prove that it had purchased a valid insurance policy from the United India Insurance Company. The application for permission to produce the policy as additional evidence in appeal is devoid of merit. The appellant for reasons best known to it has not produced the policies which are sought to be produced as additional evidence, along with the application. There is no explanation as to why these policies could not be produced at the trial stage. Non production of these policies even at the appellate stage alongwith the application disentitles the appellant of any indulgence from this Court The conduct of the appellant disentitles it of the discretionary relief. The application is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequal, there is no force in the appeal. The appellant has failed to establish by any cogent evidence that the vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Company. I am not persuaded to take a different view on merits than the one taken by the Tribunal.

The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee is assessed at Re. 500/-.

Cross-Objection No. 42-C II of 1989 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation cannot succeed for the reasons that there is no evidence on record that the compensation awarded to them is inadequate or on the material produced on record they were entitled to more compensation than the one awarded by the Tribunal. The same is dismissed.