New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Saloni Dargan and others

S.B. Wad, J.—This is an appeal filed by the New Indis Assurance Co.Ltd. against the award made by the Tribunal on August 26,1986,granting Rs.1,19,700 as compensation and further holding that the insurance company was liable to pay the entire amount. The submission of the appellant-company is that their liability is limited to Rs.50,000.

At the time of the recording of the evidence, one Shri J.C.Sharma,Assistant Administrative Officer,appered and produced a true copy of the policy. He stated in his evidence that he had prepared the original policy, that the carbon copy of the policy was destroyed and that the insurance company had sent a notice and telegram to the owner, Shri Ravi Dutt,to produce the original in the court. The owner did not produce the original policy. The Tribunal found that the copy produced was neither of the original nor a carbon copy. The Tribunal further held that no date had been mentioned as to when the true copy was prepared. The court also found that the policy was issued in Jily,1978,while the proforma of the true copy show that forms itself were printed in August 1978. The Tribunal therefore did not place any reliance on the true copy of the insurance policy and held that the insurance company was liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. Counsel for the appellant-insurance company submit that the true copy should be taken on record and be relied upon as secondary evidence when the original insurance policy as well as its carbon copy are not available In spite of the notice, the owner did not produce the original. He further submit that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an enquiry before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. His other submission of insurance company being limited only to the statutory liability.

It is true that the strict provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act, that the procedure is a summary procedure and any document having some probative value and genuineness of which is not in doubt, can be looked in to by the Tribunal for recording preponderance of probably versions. In this case, the owner, Ravi Dutt,did not state in his written statement that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited or whether he had paid additional premium. He only stated that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. The owner also did not come to the witness box to claim that the liability of thr insurance company was unlimited. On the other hand, the insurance company stated in its written statement that its liability was limited ro the statutory liability. Shri Sharma who had prepared the policy in 1978 had himself deposed before the Tribunal that the policy was not a policy for unlimited liability but it was only for the statutory liability. He had stated that the original record was destroyed in 1983. Usually records are destroyed after five years. Therefore, his version does not appear to be improbable. The submission of counsel for the appellants that the burden is on the owner to prove that the liability of the insurance company is unlimited is not correct. This being a case of civil liability, the rule is of preponderance of probability. Therefore, both owner as well as the insurance company are required to produce relevant material in support of the quantum of their liability. In this case, I find that the owner had not discharged his burden while the insurance company had.

For the reasons, stated above, the appeal is allowed. The insurance company is liable to pay only Rs. 50,000. this amount has since been released and paid to the claimants by way of a cheque. It is clarified that the balance of the amount will be paid by the driver and a cheque for the amount in question will be deposited by them with the Registrar of this court who, after issuing notices to the claimants, will disburse the amount to them.