Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kishore Singh and Another

Deepak Verma, J.—This appeal, u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is at the instance of the Insurance Company against the award dated 11th February, 1998 passed by Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 262 of 1997.

Respondent No. 1 Kishore Singh, had sustained severe injuries on his body on account of a motor accident. He preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal. He examined himself as also the doctor to show the nature of injuries and the permanent disability sustained by him. On appreciation of evidence available on record and looking to the nature of injuries sustained by respondent No. 1, he has been awarded an amount of Rs. 4,24,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the same, mainly on the ground that the claimant had failed to prove that at the relevant point, of time, the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company. Respondent No. 1 has also filed cross-objection for enhancement of the amount of Award.

We have, accordingly, heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The appellant-Insurance Company failed to lead any evidence, to show that the vehicle in question was not insured with it at the relevant point of time. The driver and owner were admittedly ex parte before the Claims Tribunal. The "driver expired during the pendency of the claim petition and his L.Rs. were not brought on record. Appellant did not make any efforts or inquiry from the owner with regard to the vehicle being insured with it or not. The claimant relied on Ex. P-5 property seizure memo prepared by police soon after the accident. As per this seizure memo certain documents were recovered from truck bearing Registration No. DL-1G-0875. In the said recovery an insurance policy issued by the appellant herein, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Delhi valid upto 28th July, 1995 bearing No. 410 was also seized. The accident had taken place on 2nd February, 1995. If the validity of the insurance policy as given in Ex. P-5 is to be taken as correct, then admittedly on the date of the accident the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant Insurance Company.

P.W. 2 Kishore Singh, respondent No. 1 herein has also proved this document, but there was no cross-examination by the Counsel for the appellant in this regard. Except for bare denial in the written statement appellant did not make any effort to show or prove that no such policy was issued by this appellant Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal has discussed this matter at length in para 27 of the impugned Award and has come to the conclusion that in absence of categorical and specific denial by the appellant-Insurance Company and by the initial onus being discharged by the claimant, it is proved that the vehicle in question at the relevant point of time was insured with appellant-Insurance Company. We find that there is no reason to take a different view than what has been already recorded by the Claims Tribunal.

Learned Counsel for respondent has also placed reliance on 2 judgments reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anga Chinni Babu and Others, ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shaik Ashabi and Others, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaik Ashabi and Ors. to contend that if necessary details of the policy have been furnished by the claimant and the same have not been denied specifically then the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to pay the amount.

After having heard the Counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record we find that there is no merit or substance in this appeal. The burden which lay on the appellant-Insurance Company has not been discharged in accordance with law. The appellant has not led any evidence to show that the vehicle in question at the relevant point of time was not insured with it. It has not even denied Ex. P-5 specifically in its written statement. Not only this P.W. 2 Kishore Singh was not even confronted with this seizure memo. Thus we find what no case has been made out for interference.

Respondent has also preferred cross-objection against the Award praying for enhancement of the same. After having gone through the record and the evidence available on record as also the medical report we find that just and proper amount of compensation has been awarded to respondent No. 1-claimant. No case is made out for enhancement of the compensation. The cross-objection is also dismissed.

The appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs.