Sanjay Kumar Singh vs Shyama Pad Pandey @ Shyam Kumar Pande, Pushpa Devi and National Insurance Company

Prashant Kumar, J.—This appeal is directed against the award passed by learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T. Judge, Dhanbad u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act in Compensation (M.V.) Claim No. 35 of 2009 directing the Appellant (owner of the offending vehicle) to pay ad interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants.

It is submitted by Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant that Appellant filed insurance policy in the court below regarding the offending vehicle which was valid from 04.07.2008 to 03.07.2009. Thus on the date of accident i.e. on 01.01.2009, vehicle in question was insured with Insurance Company. It is submitted that Appellant got his vehicle insured from one Narendra Singh authorised agent of National Insurance Company. Under the said circumstance, it is not open for the Insurance Company to challenge said insurance policy. Accordingly, it is submitted that learned Tribunal has committed illegality by holding that Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner.

Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the impugned award. It appears from impugned award that agent (Narendra Singh), through whom Appellant got his vehicle insured with National Insurance Company, has not deposited said amount in any of the Branch of National Insurance Company nor the certificate given to the Appellant by aforesaid agent was issued by any Branch of National Insurance Company. Insurance Company had categorically stated that said insurance certificate is fake and forged. It is also stated by Insurance Company that licence of aforesaid agent namely Narendra Singh already expired on 9.5.2008 and thereafter same has not been renewed.

Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find that learned court below prima-facie rightly concluded that vehicle in question is not insured with National Insurance Company.

Thus I am not inclined to interfere with aforesaid interim award given by court below. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

However I give liberty to Appellant to prove that Insurance policy is not fake and forged. It is also made clear that any finding given by Tribunal as well as by this Court in this regard will not prejudice Appellant in future.