AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. P. Routray, J
I.A. No.126 of 2022
Heard Mr. P.K. Panda, learned counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner.
The present I.A. has been filed by the Appellant-insurer praying to recall the order dated 10.02.2022 of this Court.
It is submitted that as per Ground No.B of the appeal memo, which is relating to non-availability of valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle (Truck) on the date of accident and could not be agitated at the time of hearing, the order of this Court may be recalled.
Having heard Mr. P.K. Panda, learned counsel for the Appellant-insurer and upon perusal of the copy of the WS filed by the insurer as produced by him, it reveals that the specific pleadings taken before the learned Tribunal in the WS are as follows:
“1(b) That the petitioner has not mentioned the full particulars of the Insurance Policy of the vehicle OSD-1202 (Truck) in the claim petition. Due to the aforesaid reason the above case is liable to be dismissed;
xxx xxx xxx
(2) That the O.P. No.2 submits that the summons have been served on this O.P. No.2 alleging that this O.P. No.2 was the insurer of the aforesaid vehicle. This O.P. No.2 submits that from the registers maintained by the O.P. No.2, it is not possible to get information regarding policy particulars of the alleged offending vehicle No.OSD-1202 (Truck) in the absence of full and correct particulars with regard to the Insurance Policy or Certificate of Insurance. Under the circumstances this O.P. No.2 categorically and specifically denies the facts stated in column No.14, 15 and 16 of the claim petition and submits that this O.P. No.2 does not admit itself to be the insurer of the vehicle No.OSD-1202 (Truck). This O.P. No.2 calls upon the petitioner and owner of the offending vehicle to furnish the full particulars of the Insurance Policy or produce the policy and if at all the policy is supplied, this O.P. No.2 reserves the right of filing the additional written statement or amend the same as and when necessary.
xxx xxx xxx”
The copy of the WS as given by Mr. Panda is kept on record.
As seen from the aforesaid pleadings taken before the learned Tribunal, the insurer is unclear as to his contention regarding valid insurance of the Truck. The case of the insurer seems to be that in absence of detail particulars of the insurance policy furnished by the claimant, it is not in a position to verify and confirm the same. In other words, no specific denial is there on the part of the insurer to suggest anything adverse to the claim of insurance made by the claimant. Furthermore, the insurer did not adduce any evidence. Admittedly the owner of the Truck was set ex-parte before the Tribunal and here in the appeal though appears before this Court, but is unable to say anything about valid insurance. In such view of the matter, when no evidence was adduced by the insurer to deny validity of insurance on the date of accident nor the contention of the claimant on this score is rebutted, the grounds taken by the insurer to deny the validity of the policy on the date of accident has no merit to be considered. Accordingly, the contention of the insurer is rejected.
The I.A. is dismissed.
………………..