AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sodhi, J.—The controversy here is with regard to the liability of the Respondent-insurance company for the amount awarded as compensation to the claimants.
On October 23, 1974 in an accident between a motor-cycle and a truck at Chowk Gowal Mandi, Amritsar, both the driver as also the pillion rider of the motor-cycle were seriously injured. It is in respect of these injuries that both Havaldar Maluk Singh, the driver of the motor-cycle and Subedar Milkha Singh, the pillion rider thereof filed claims for compensation u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck PUA 2701. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- was awarded as compensation to Havaldar Maluk Singh and Rs. 18,000/- to Subedar Milkha Singh.
The liability for the payment of the amount awarded was fastened upon the owner of the offending truck namely Precto Pipe Company and the driver of the truck. It was specifically held that the Respondent-insurance company was not liable for the amount awarded in this case.
The facts relevant to the controversy raised here are that the truck involved in the accident was originally owned by one Chamel Singh. This truck was purchased by the Precto Pipe Company on June 17, 1974. At that time, there was a valid polcy of insurance in respect of this truck iin the name of Chamel Singh. This policy was for the period January 24, 1974 to January 24, 1975. There is on record a letter Ext. R/2 bearing the date July 9, 1974 addressed to the Respondent-insurance company by the Precto Pipe Company requesting transfer of the policy of insurance in respect of the truck to their name as it had been purchased by them from Chamel Singh. Exhibit R/3 is said to be the certificate of posting in respect of this letter. Next is the letter Exhibit R/4 of July 26, 1974 again from the Precto Pipe Company to the Respondent insurance company reiterating their request for the transfer of the insurance policy. There is reference in this letter to the earlier letter of July 9, 1974. This letter too is said to have been sent under certificate of posting. Exhibit R/5 being the postal certificate in respect thereof. It was, on these facts, sought to be contended by Mr. L.M. Suri, counsel for the present owner of the truck that in the absence of any refusal of the Respondent-insurance company to the transfer of the policy of insurance, by virtue of Section 103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the certificate of insurance must be deemed to have been transferred in the name of the Precto Pipe Company and consequently the Respondent-insurance company must be held liable for the amount awarded.
Mr. R.K. Chhiber, counsel for the claimants sought to buttress the stand of Mr. L.M. Suri by pressing in aid the presumption u/s 114(E) and (F) of the Evidence Act to contend thereby that as the letters exhibits R/2 and R/4 had been sent under certificate of posting it must be taken that they were duly received by the Respondent insurance company. The argument being that if a registered letter or letter sent under certificate of posting is properly addressed, prepaid and contains the relevant document, it must be deemed to have duly reached its destination. In support of this contention, he referred to the observations to this effect in Achamma Thomas v. E.R. Fairman AIR 1970 Mysore 77, The Abhovjan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. v. The Agricultural income tax Officer Shillong AIR 1966 Ass 84 and Harihar Banerji v. Ramshashi Roy AIR 1918 P.C. 102.
It was further the contention of Mr. R.K. Chhiber, that the genuineness of the letters Exhibits R/2 and R/4 could not be doubted in the absence of any plea being raised by the insurance company in its written statement to the effect that no intimation regarding change of ownership of the truck had been received by it. For this reason non-compliance with the provisions of Order 6, Rule 2 and Order 8, Rules 2 and 5 of the CPC was imputed to the Respondent-insurance company.
8 The main question which arises for determination is whether, in fact Precto Pipe Company addressed and sent the letters exhibits R/2 and R/4 to the Respondent-insurance company as deposed by their. Manager, Joginder Pal.
In dealing with this matter, it would be pertinent to note that in the claim application the name of the Respondent-insurance company was mentioned after it had been disclosed to the claimants by the Precto Pipe Company. In the written statement filed by the Respondent-insurance company thereafter, it was specifically pleaded that the Precto Pipe Company had never insured the truck with them and that it was insured by Chamel Singh and in case Precto Pipe Company was proved to be the owner of the truck the replying Respondent would not be liable. It was after this written statement had been filed that a return was filed on behalf of the Precto Pipe Company. It is significant to note that no plea was raised therein to controvert what had been stated in the written statement filed by the Respondent-insurance company. There was no mention of any intimation having been sent to the Respondent-insurance company regarding the transfer of the ownership of the truck or that the policy of insurance was deemed to have been transferred to the present owner of the truck. Mr. L.M. Suri, counsel for the truck owner sought to account for this omission, on the plea that as the form for the filing of a claim application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was one as prescribed by law, no facts not covered by any column could be mentioned either in the claim application or in the written statement filed with regard thereto. This explanation is wholly devoid of merit. The fact that a form has been prescribed is clearly no bar to any additional fact being set out either in the claim application or in the written statement. This, thus constitutes no acceptable or valid explanation to account for this glaring omission.
Further, the conduct of the truck owner also tells against them. As has been mentioned above the truck was purchased in June, 1974 and the policy of insurance in respect thereof in the name of its previous owner Chamel Singh was to expire in January, 1975. During this period the policy was never transferred in the name of Precto Pipe Company. No effort appears to have been made to pursue the matter and to get the policy of insurance put in the name of the Precto Pipe Company.
The other important aspect of this matter is that when Sh. K.K. Gupta (R.W. 3) of the Respondent-insurance company came into the witness box, he made a categoric statement that no notice had been given to the Respondent-insurance company or received by it regarding the transfer of the truck to the Precto Pipe Company. This statement, was allowed to go unchallenged. It was thereafter that Joginder Pal, the Manager, Precto Pipe Company came into the witness box and for the first time disclosed and placed on record the letters exhibits R/2 and R/4 said to have been written by the Precto Pipe Company to the Respondent-insurance company seeking the transfer of the policy of insurance. The Tribunal had come to the finding that these documents were forged, false and fictitious. The circumstances as have been set out above do indeed point to the justification for this finding, as no explanation is forth coming to account for the non-mention of these documents until such a belated stage and that too in the manner mentioned above. A serious doubt is indeed raised with regard to their genuineness and it would, therefore, not be safe to rely upon them.
Turing to the point raised by Mr. R.K. Chhiber based upon the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is well settled that the strict technical rules thereof do not apply to proceeding before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and at any rate, there was no requirement on the part of the Respondent-insurance company to plead its case in the negative. The plea which ought and should have been raised was in fact raised, namely that the Precto Pipe Company had not insured the truck with them.
As regards the presumption arising from the sending of letters in the post, this can obviously arise only after it is duly proved, that a letter was in fact posted. Here the very sending of the letters by Precto Pipe Company to the Respondent-insurance company has been seriously doubted. The provisions of Section 114 of the Evidence Act are clearly of no avail to seek to establish thereby the posting of a letter as a question of fact.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of this case, for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal rightly did not rely upon the letters exhibits R/2 and R/4 and was justified in holding that they were not worthy of acceptance.
Mr. L.M. Suri, then turned to the provisions of the insurance policy exhibit R-1, in an effort to show that the policy in any case covered the driver of the truck and therefore, the Respondent-insurance company was liable to pay the amount awarded in this case. The clause in the insurance policy upon which this argument was based reads as under:
Any other person who holds the licence provided he is in the insured''s employ and is driving on his order or permission.
This again is a contention devoid of merit. There is no material on record here to suggest that the driver of the truck was at the time of the accident driving it under the direction or with the permission of the insured. The insured here being Chamel Singh, the previous owner of the truck. The judgment cited in support namely, New India Assurance Company Limited v. Moti Ram 1967 A.C.J. 312 (Punj.) lends no support to the point canvassed. This was a case relating to the transfer, of a truck. The accident had taken place a year after its transfer, but before the policy of insurance had been transferred in the name of the new owner. The insurance company was held liable in respect of the accident on the ground that it had not been shown that the driver of the truck was not driving the truck at the time of the accident under the direction or with the permission of the previous owner. In other words, the policy of insurance covered the driver of the offending vehicle if he was shown to have been driving the vehicle under the direction or with the permission of the insured. This is not the case here.
There is, thus, no escape from the conclusion that the Respondent-insurance company was not in any manner liable for the compensation awarded to the claimants in this case.
In the result both the appeals are hereby dismissed. The Respondent-insurance company shall be entitled to its costs in both these appeals. Counsel''s fee Rs. 300/- (one set only.)