AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Learned Counsel Ms. Rajashree Purkayastha appearing on behalf of the appellant and also, heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Saugat Datta appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondents and further heard Learned Counsel, Ms. Sulagna Nandy appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle bearing No.TR02H1551.
This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and award dated 30.06.2022 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unakoti District, Kailashahar in connection with TS(MAC)11 of 2018.
At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant drawn the attention of the Court that in this case Learned Tribunal directed the present appellant to pay compensation amount of Rs.5,11,000/- to the respondent-claimant petitioners with simple interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. with effect from 19.05.2018 to till the date of actual payment within a period of two months, and in case of default, the appellant is to pay further penal interest at the rate of 9% till the date of actual payment and challenging that judgment, a review petition was filed, which was also dismissed by Learned MAC Tribunal, Unakoti district, Kailashahar by Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2023 in Civil Misc.(Review)8 of 2022. It was the case of the appellant that before the Learned Tribunal, the respondent-claimants failed to prove the Insurance Certificate, but the Learned Tribunal did not consider the same and based upon the screenshot came to the observation that on the date of alleged accident, the vehicle was insured with the present appellant and directed the appellant to pay the amount of compensation to the respondent-claimants.
It was further submitted that before this Court, the appellant-Insurance Company has sweared an affidavit and submitted that the policy bearing No.20300031166300004855 was valid from 07.07.2016 to midnight of 06.07.2018, but on the alleged date the offending vehicle had no valid insurance policy and no insurance certificate was issued by the appellant to the owner in support of the offending vehicle.
In this regard, a direction was given to DTO, North Tripura to produce the relevant documents and to swear an affidavit and accordingly, the DTO, North Tripura, Unakoti District, Kailasahar, physically appeared and submitted the following assertions in the affidavit in para Nos.6 and 7, which are as follows:
“6.That, I say that, the particulars of Insurance Policy such as, the agency name, type of policy, policy number its validity etc. used to enter manually into the Vahan 4.O portal on the basis of physical Insurance certificates produced by the vehicle owner during the transaction processes for new registration number, renewal of fitness certificate and permits.
Similarly, the Screen report of Vehicle registration No.TR02H1551 with policy No.04555, issued by National Insurance Company Ltd., having the validity period from 08/08/2017 to 07/08/2018, showing in the Vahan 4.O portal was manually done on being produced the documents by the owner of the vehicle.
7.That, I say that, the registering authority has no mechanism to verify the genuineness of the Insurance Policy Certificate so, the proof of geneunity is solely rest with the vehicle owner or the Insurance Company.”
Referring the same, Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Karnajit De, submitted that on the basis of the screen report of the vehicle bearing No.TR02H1551 with policy No.04555 issued by National Insurance Company Ltd. having the validity period from 08.08.2017 to 07.08.2018 showing in the Vahan 4.0 portal was manually done on being produced the documents by the owner of the vehicle. So, according to Learned Counsel, it is the owner who has to substantiate that on the alleged date the vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company.
Learned Counsel for the owner-respondent relied upon one photocopy of insurance certificate showing that on the alleged day the owner had valid insurance certificate of the offending vehicle but Learned Counsel could not produce the original certificate of insurance to substantiate that on the alleged date of accident the vehicle had valid insurance certificate.
I have also perused the judgment of the Learned Tribunal below. It appears that before the Learned Tribunal, the said document was not proved or marked as Exhibit. Even there was no effort from the side of the owner, either to collect duplicate copy of the insurance certificate from the appellant-Insurance Company or by any other mode. Even the owner could file application before the Learned Tribunal to direct the appellant-Insurance Company to produce the certified copy of the alleged insurance certificate on the basis of which the owner took the stand that on the alleged date of accident the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.
Learned Tribunal for want of driving licence awarded the amount of compensation with “pay and recovery policy” and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation and thereafter to realize the same from the owner of the vehicle, i.e. the OP No.2 in the main petition.
As already stated, the appellant-Insurance Company totally denied by swearing affidavit that on the alleged day the offending vehicle was not under insurance coverage of the appellant-Insurance company. The owner-respondent also failed to produce the original copy of Insurance Certificate at the time of hearing. Even at the time of hearing, being asked by this Court, Learned counsel for the owner could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding non-production of original Insurance Certificate before this Court also. So, only on the basis of entry in the screen report that on the alleged day vehicle has valid registration certificate there was no scope on the part of the Learned Tribunal to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the respondent-claimants. Thus, it appears that there was perversity in the findings of the award made by the Learned Tribunal and Learned Tribunal erroneously fastened the liability upon the appellant-Insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the respondent-claimant.
In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is partly allowed with modification that in place of the appellant-Insurance Company, now the total amount of compensation shall be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.TR02H1551 to the respondent-claimants with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., with effect from 19.05.2018 to till the date of actual payment. The respondent-owner shall pay the said amount to the respondent-claimants within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of passing of this judgment.
It is to be noted here that in a case of this nature, burden always lie upon the owner to pay the compensation to the victims or the injured or to the claimants in case of death of the victim but if the vehicle remains insured with an Insurance Policy, in that case, the Insurance Company after receipt of premium undertakes the responsibility to indemnify the compensation to the victims on behalf of the owner. Here, in this case, since the claimants have failed to adduce any valid insurance certificate of the offending vehicle on the day of alleged accident, so, in place of Insurance Company the owner shall satisfy the award.
With this observation, the present appeal stands disposed of.
Pending applications(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
Send down the record to the Learned Tribunal below along with the copy of this Judgment/Order.
Supply a copy of this Judgment/Order to Learned Counsel for the contesting parties free of cost.