AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant Insurance Company impugns a judgment dated 17.05.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 1,20,603/- was awarded in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 21.09.2006. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company is that a notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC was issued to the Respondent No. 3, the owner of the vehicle, to produce the valid permit in respect of the vehicle No. HR-39A-5147 to ply the same in the State of Haryana at the time of the accident. Despite the service of notice, the owner failed to produce the permit.
It is, thus, argued that the Appellant Insurance Company discharged its initial onus to prove that there was breach of the terms and conditions of policy on the part of the Insured.
It is further urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle preferred not to contest the proceedings despite service of the notice, and therefore, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the owner of the offending vehicle.
The Appellant Insurance Company entered into a contract of insurance with Respondent No. 3 (Kartar Singh), the owner of the Truck No. HR-39A-5147. It was aware of the Transport Authority where the vehicle was registered. It also had means to inquire whether the vehicle had a valid permit at the time of the accident or not, but failed to do so.
The Claims Tribunal taking all these facts into consideration relied on a judgment of this Court in ''Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bhikhari Yadav & Ors.'', MAC APP. 727/2011, decided on 03.01.2012, where this Court held that the Appellant Insurance Company could have summoned the record from the office of the Transport Authority to find out if the owner (Insured) had a valid permit to ply the vehicle on the road. It was further held that in the absence of any evidence the Insurance Company cannot be said to have discharged its initial onus to prove that there was breach of the terms and conditions of policy.
This case is squarely covered by the judgment of Bhikhari Yadav (supra).
The Appeal is frivolous; the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. Pending Applications stand disposed of.