Brij Lal vs Dharambir and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak on a claim petition had awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 17.10.1988 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle No. DBL-6873. The Insurance Company was absolved of its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the vehicle was not insured.

Dissatisfied with the award, the claimant had filed the present appeal with a prayer that the liability to pay compensation would be that of Insurance Company as the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent-Insurance Company and the Tribunal had wrongly absolved its liability.

During the pendency of appeal, the claimant had also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 for permission to produce Insurance Cover Note as additional evidence. Notice of the civil misc. application was issued and the same was to be disposed of with the main appeal.

Learned counsel for the respondents contends that no notice of the cover note can be taken as the same has been filed at a very belated stage.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. I am convinced that the Tribunal had simply relied upon the statement of counsel for the Insurance Company which was recorded without oath in which he has stated that the vehicle was not insured. Counsel for the Insurance Company has made a false statement which is not based on material fact and as such, no credibility to the statement of counsel should have been given. From the perusal of cover note, it has transpired that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company and the same was valid upto 9.7.1989.

In this view of the matter, finding of the Tribunal on issue No.3 is reversed and it is held that the liability to pay compensation would be that of the Insurance Company as the offending vehicle was duly insured with it. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak is modified accordingly.

F.A.O. is partly allowed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the Insurance Company.

Before parting with the judgment, I may hasten to add that the Motor Vehicles Act is a social legislation which was enacted to provide monetary assistance to the victims of road accident. If the motor vehicle is not comprehensively insured, the interest of 3rd party is always protected. If it is proved that the vehicle was duly insured and the accident had not occurred due to negligence of the driver and the vehicle was being driven by the authorised person, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay compensation. The tendency on the part of the Insurance Company to avoid its liability to pay compensation on flimsy grounds is deprecated. Moreover, the Insurance Companies are not created for earning profits, but to safeguard the interest of dependents of victims of road accident by giving relief.