M/S. Anbros Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors

Leave granted.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 4022 of 2004, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent­Insurance company and exonerated the Insurance company, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident has preferred the present appeal.

In a vehicular accident which took place on 21.10.2002, one Sandeep Kumar died. The vehicle in question was insured with the respondent­Insurance company. The insurance was valid from 22.01.2002 till 21.01.2003. The vehicle was having the trade certificate No. CH­01­TC­66. It was initially valid up to 31.03.2002. The vehicle in question was owned by the appellant­ M/s Abbros Motors Pvt. Ltd.

3.1 The parents of the deceased filed a Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. An objection was raised by the insurance company that, at the relevant time, the trade certificate was not renewed and/or the renewal was not reported to the insurance company and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons decided the Issue No. 2B in favour of the appellant­owner and held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal specifically observed and negatived the submission made on behalf of the insurance company that there was a breach of Rule 4 of the Indian Motor Tariff Rules.

3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the insurance company filed an appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has exonerated the insurance company on that ground that there was a breach of Rule 4 of the Indian Motors Tariff Rules as there was no valid trade certificate at the time of the accident. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident has preferred the present appeal.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken us through the relevant evidence/additional documents. It is vehemently submitted that, as such, at the time of the accident the vehicle was insured with the respondent­Insurance company and, not only that, the trade certificate with respect to the vehicle in question was renewed and there was a valid trade certificate at the time of the accident. She has also taken us through the deposition of the Officer of the Office of Registering Authority and relying upon the deposition of the Officer it is submitted that the said witness has categorically admitted in the cross­examination that as per the record the trade certificate No. CH­01­TC­66 was renewed and the fresh new number was CH­02­TC­000103/2002. It is submitted that in the cross­ examination the said witness has specifically admitted that as per the record the trade certificate No. CH­02­TC­000103/2002 was a valid trade certificate as on 21.10.2002.

4.1 Relying upon the reply given by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh on an enquiry under the RTI Act, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the trade certificate No. CH­01­TC­66 was changed due to computerization and implementation of Tata Software and it was given a new number as CH­02­TC­000103/2002. It is submitted that, therefore, the High Court has erred in exonerating the respondent­Insurance company.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent­ Insurance company has, while opposing the present appeal, submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has not committed any error in exonerating the insurance company. It is submitted that it was not a case of renewal of trade certificate No. CH­ 01­TC­66. However, there was a fresh trade certificate issued, which was numbered as CH­02­TC­000103/2002. It is submitted that, therefore, there was no valid trade certificate at the time of the accident and/or the same was not disclosed at the time of the renewal of the insurance policy and there was a breach of Rule 4 of the Indian Motor Tariff Rules and, therefore, the High Court has rightly exonerated the respondent­Insurance company.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have also gone through and considered the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, more particularly, the reasons given by the Tribunal while deciding Issue no. 2B and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court exonerating the insurance company. Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the insurance company that the appellant­ owner was having four different trade certificates, including trade certificate Nos. CH­01­TC­66 and CH­02­TC­000103/2002, however, the owner did not disclose all the trade certificates to the insurance company and, therefore, there was a breach of Rule 4 of the Indian Motor Tariff Rules. Having gone through the insurance policy, the Tribunal held that there was no requirement that in case any party fails to do so that would tantamount to the breach of the insurance policy and, therefore, the Tribunal held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation. However, the High Court reversed the said finding.

6.1 Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the material on record, it appears that the trade certificate No. CH­01­TC­66 was renewed and it was continued at the time of the accident. In the cross­examination, the Officer of the Registering Authority has categorically admitted that it is correct that as per the record the trade certificate No. CH­01­TC­66 was renewed and the fresh trade certificate No. CH­02­TC­ 000103/2002 was issued. He has also further admitted that, as per the record, the trade certificate No. CH­02­TC­000103/2002 was a valid trade certificate on 21.10.2002, the date on which the accident took place. From the documents produced on record by way of additional documents, the trade certificate No. CH­01­TC­66 was given a new number as CH­02­TC­000103/2002 due to the implementation of the Tata Software. Therefore, the trade certificate No. CH­01­TC­66 was given a new number as CH­02­TC­000103/2002 and that there was a valid trade certificate with respect to the vehicle in question as on the date of the accident i.e. 21.10.2002. Under the circumstances, there was no breach of Rule 4 of the Indian Motor Tariff Rules and/or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in allowing the appeal preferred by the insurance company and exonerating the insurance company.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court exonerating the respondent­Insurance company is hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.