National Insurance Company Limited vs Umrav Singh and Another

N.K. Mody, J.—This appeal shall also govern the disposal of MA No. 978/2000.

Being aggrieved by the award dated 3.5.2000 passed in Claim Case No. 171/1998 by MACT, Indore, the present appeals have been filed, while M.A. No. 978/2000 is filed against the award passed in Claim Case No. 170/1998.

In Case No. 171/1998 wherein MA No. 977/1998 is filed, the award is for Rs. 20,000 and in Case No. 170/1998 wherein MA No. 978/2000 is filed, the award is for Rs. 11,000 along with interest @ 10% per annum. In both the appeals Insurance Company is the appellant herein who has been held responsible for the payment of amount of compensation along with respondent No. 2.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that except the name of insurance company has been mentioned in the claim petitions there is nothing on record to demonstrate that vehicle in question was insured with Insurance Company. Learned Counsel submits that burden to prove the vehicle was insured with the appellant lies on respondent No. 1. For this contention reliance is placed on a unreported decision of this Court in the matter of The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mehtab and Anr. in CR No. 787/1998 which was disposed of vide a order dated 1.3.2000 wherein this Court has observed as under:

The Civil Procedure are applicable as far as possible while conducting the claims in respect of the compensation awardable on account of the accident caused by the use of motor vehicles. The evidence cannot be treated as go-bye. In view of the pleadings averred in the written statement, it was the duty of the claimant to make an application to the Tribunal for getting the direction for production of Insurance Policy. That has not been done so far as present claim is concerned. Otherwise, the claimant should have issued a notice to the owner of the vehicle asking him to produce the policy and in the event of failure on his part should have made a request to the Court by moving an application to direct the owner of the vehicle to produce the policy. That has also not been done. The law does not help the ignorance.

Further reliance is place on a un-reported judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Brijmohan v. Bhagchand and Ors. in MA No. 85/1995 wherein the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11.12.2000 has observed that "respondent No. 3 asserted that the offending truck was not insured with it. The appellant or the owner of the truck did not produce insurance policy nor prayed the Tribunal to direct the Insurance Co. to produce the insurance policy. Under such circumstance, the learned Tribunal rightly held that it could not be proved that this truck was insured with respondent No. 3".

In view of this, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/Insurance Company has wrongly been held responsible for amount awarded.

Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that in the record Ex. P/6 is filed which is the memo of seizure which contains that insurance policy dated 21.2.1996. It is submitted that the memo of seizure has been proved and is marked as Ex. P/6. In the circumstance, it was the duty of the Insurance Company to come forward and to say that the said policy has nothing to do with the vehicle in question. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kishore Singh and Another, wherein the Divisional Bench of this Court has held that initial onus had been discharged by the claimant through seizure memo, claimant was not confronted with seizure memo. Claim of the respondents was denied and Insurance Company had not led any evidence to show that the vehicle was not insured. It was held that no case has been made out for interference.

In the present case also no evidence has been led by the appellant/Insurance Company and there is nothing on record to show that the Insurance Company is not responsible for payment of compensation. While the initial burden was discharged by the respondent No. 1 by proving Exhibit-P/6 seizure memo. Before this Court also appellant has made no efforts to demonstrate that the policy which has been seized has nothing to do with the offending vehicle. In view of this, appeal has no force. Hence, stands dismissed. Similarly, MA No. 978/2000 also stands dismissed. A copy of this order be also kept in the record of M.A. No. 978/2000. No order as to costs.