National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sandeep Singh And Others

The appellant-Insurance Company has impugned the judgment/ award dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu

(hereinafter referred to be as the 'Tribunal') in file No. 586/claims, titled, ""Sandeep Singh vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others"", by

virtue of which an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No. 1 along with interest at the rate of Rs. 7.5% per annum (

except on loss of future earning) from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

When the matter was taken up, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly submitted that the appellant-Insurance

Company does not dispute the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of respondent No.1. The only grievance of the appellant-Insurance

Company is that it had furnished the list of witnesses and even deposited the diet expenses for summoning of the witnesses, such as, driver and

concerned officials of the R.T.O. but the learned Tribunal without securing the presence of the witnesses as well as without receiving the reply of

interrogatories, closed the evidence of the appellant-Insurance Company. It is further argued by Mr. Rajesh Kumar that closure of evidence has

deprived the right of the Insurance Company to prove the issue No. 3, which reads as under:

Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was holding a valid and effective driving licence and vehicle was being driven in

contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy, Route Permit, RC and fitness etc. OPR-I

Now only it is to be seen whether the learned Tribunal has closed the evidence without securing the presence of the witnesses and obtaining reply

of interrogatories.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal.

The appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the diet expenses and also submitted the interrogatories for the purpose of examining the witness.

From the record, it transpires that notice was also sent to the witnesses. However, for one reason or the other, they did not appear before the Court

and also reply of the interrogatories has not been received from the Court of District Judge, Kohima. A perusal of the orders dated 02.06.2009,

28.07.2009, 07.09.2009 and 14.10.2009 would reveal that the learned Tribunal has recorded that the interrogatories be sent to the Court and further

reminder be also sent. However, suddenly vide order dated 26.01.2010, the learned Tribunal without there being any reason, closed the evidence of

the appellant- Insurance Company .

Once the appellant-Insurance Company had deposited the diet expenses and even the Tribunal has sent for the reply of the interrogatories to the

District Judge, Kohima, the learned Tribunal should have waited for the reply of interrogatories and also should have secured the presence of the other

witnesses through the modes available under law. The appellant-Insurance Company has every right to be aggrieved of the award as the appellant has

been deprived of its right to prove issue No. 3.

In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to learned Tribunal for deciding the issue No. 3 afresh and the learned tribunal shall decide the

same after affording opportunity of being heard to the contesting parties. The quantum of award is maintained and the same shall be released in

favour of respondent No. 1 after proper identification by his counsel.

Disposed of.