High CourtsDivision Bench(2006) 09 JH CK 0075

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Chanda Mahato and Another

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 18 September 2006 · Citation: (2007) 2 ACC 449 : (2007) 1 JCR 24

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dhananjay Prasad Singh, J · Amareshswar Sahay, J
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 301 words
1.

The appellant, National Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order of claims Tribunal, Giridih passed on 4.2.2003 in claim case No. 8 of 1982/6 of 2002 by which appellant Company was directed to pay (Rs. 50,000/-) to respondent claimant No. 1.

2.

On 8.1.1982 at about 4.30 p.m. a Car registered as BHU-5, insured with the appellant dashed and caused death of the Bodhi Mahato son of the claimant in claim case No. 8 of 1982. The owner has not contested the claim but the show cause filed by the owner on 11.1.1983 has claimed that the vehicle was insured. The appellant denied that the vehicle was insured with it. However before the Claim Tribunal Insurance Policy No. 456/580p/6302970 was produced on 23.12.1988 for the insurance of the vehicle. The Insurance Company has not produced the said Insurance Cover to show that the vehicle in question was actually not insured as pleaded by the owner.

3.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in absence of the cover note the order of compensation is liable to be set aside.

4.

After going through the impugned order and the material on record, we find that this belated plea is not maintainable. The Claim Tribunal has specifically mentioned that at earlier stage in the year 1983 and in the year 1988 the vehicle was admitted to be insured by the said cover note. The appellant has ample opportunity to produce the cover note mentioned in the impugned order to deny this fact.

5.

We further found that the claim is pending for last twenty five years and the appellant avoided to pay the petty amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimant on technical grounds. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal, which stands dismissed.