Amit Kumar vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the admission stage. We are not issuing any notice to the claimants as because they will not be affected by the judgment and award, which is going to be passed.

This appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Chaibasa in Compensation Case No. 22 of 2007 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,04,500/- and directed the appellant-owner of the vehicle to pay the said compensation amount on the ground that the appellant-owner of the vehicle failed to produce the Insurance policy by which the vehicle was said to be insured with the respondent-Insurance Company.

The claimants are the parents and minor brothers, who have claimed compensation on account of death of the deceased in an accident caused by a truck. The owner of the vehicle took the plea that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. For better appreciation, we shall reproduce some of the paragraphs of the impugned judgment, which will speak itself. Paragraph 11 of the judgment reads as under:

I find that O.P. No. 1 has challenged that he is not insurer of the truck and if so the terms and conditions of policy is to be complied and secondly O.P. No. 1 has also challenged the validity of driving license of the driver but on the record I find that neither original insurance policy nor the driving license have been proved by O.P. No. 2 & 3, when the matter is under challenge then O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 are required to prove there but all these are lacking on the record and this is decided accordingly.

The appellant-owner of the vehicle did not produce the Insurance policy. The Tribunal, therefore, observed as under:

As I have discussed above that O.P. No. 2 owner and O.P. No. 3 driver although appeared in this case have filed show cause but they have not proved their contention through evidence. The O.P. No. 1 Insurance Company has challenged the insurance policy and driving license of the driver. No paper has been filed regarding driving license by O.P. No. 3. So far the insurance is concerned it is the onus of O.P. No. 2 owner to file the original insurance paper and get it exhibited. But they have failed to do so and this tribunal is bound to act upon the evidence available on the record. Since O.P. No. 2 owner and O.P. No. 3 have failed to submit papers of insurance policy and valid driving license so that liability to pay compensation to claimants would devolve upon O.P. No. 2 and Insurance Company shall not be held liable in such cases Vimal Kalra Vs. Madan Lal and Others, . The driver is not necessary party and owner of the truck may be held liable The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Most. Sabitri Devi and Others .

Considering the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal assessed the compensation amount and directed the appellant-owner of the vehicle to pay the said amount of compensation. In the instant appeal, the appellant-owner of the vehicle reiterated that the truck was insured with the respondent- Insurance Company. On 11.1.2010, the appeal was heard in part and Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company was directed to seek instruction as to whether the vehicle in question was insured with the respondent- Insurance Company. Today, Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, on instruction, submitted that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance company during the relevant date of accident. Admittedly when the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, it was highly improbable and unjustified for the Insurance Company to challenge that the vehicle was not insured with it, without proper verification of their records. This practice must be stopped by the Insurance Companies. At the same time when the vehicle was insured then what prevented the appellant-owner of the vehicle from producing either the original insurance policy or copy of the insurance policy. It was equal responsibility of the owner to produce before the Tribunal the insurance policy in support of his defence that the vehicle was insured.

In the light of aforesaid finding, we are of the view that the entire compensation amount shall have to be paid by the respondent- Insurance Company. So far interest part is concerned, the appellant-owner must be saddled with the liability of payment of interest because of inaction on his part in not producing the policy before the Tribunal.

This appeal is, therefore, allowed and we modify the operative part of the judgment by holding that the Insurance Company shall pay the entire compensation and the interest, as awarded by the tribunal, shall be paid by the appellant-owner of the vehicle.