Suman Agrawal And Others vs Palo Kui And Others

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

All these civil misc. petitions arise out of batch of cases of motor accident claim cases bearing M.A.C.C. Nos. 71 of 2019, 68 of 2019, 28 of 2019, 70 of 2019 and 61 of 2019. These cases arise out of motor vehicle accident took place on 03.03.2018 involving a Maruti bearing registration No. JH 05 T 8245 in which Mansingh @ Sukhlal Hembrom, Som Hembrom @ Soma Hembrom, Vishwambhar Pat Pingua @ December Pingua @ Kalyan Pingua, Duge Hembrom @ Durga Hembrom and Lankeshwar Pat Pingua @ Lankeshvar Pingua died in the accident.

The legal representative of the deceased preferred separate claim cases for the death in the motor vehicle accident.

In all these cases the owner of the vehicle has been impleaded as O.P. 2 and the Insurance Company as O.P. 1. During the enquiry, the insurance of the vehicle has been denied by the Insurance Company.

It is the definite case of the owner of the vehicle who is the petitioner in all these cases that the accident took place on 03.03.2018 whereas the vehicle was insured with effect from 02.03.2018.

It is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle was insured with effect from 07.03.2018. In order to resolve the dispute, the petitioner moved before the Court below in all these cases for sending the handwriting and signature of the petitioner in Exhibit C-1 to an handwriting expert for examination and also for sending the policy filed by the Insurance Company and the petitioner to be examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory which has been rejected and a cost of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed and also specific direction has been given that if the cost amount is not paid, defence of the owner will be struck off. The cost is not also in terms of Section 35A or 35B of C.P.C., 1908. It is submitted that the verification of the signature by any handwriting expert should be made for the ends of justice.

The validity of the Insurance policy was a relevant issue before the learned Tribunal and to that effect the present petition has been filed by the owner.

It is trite to say that the object and purpose of the motor vehicle claim cases which have been filed under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is for speedy disposal and providing compensation to the bereaved families and dependents of the deceased. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has to determine the quantum of compensation that who will be liable to pay the compensation amount. A primary liability to pay the compensation is on the owner of the vehicle and in the event of the vehicle is insured, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Whether the vehicle was under the insurance cover at the relevant time is to be determined by the learned Tribunal on the basis of documentary evidence that is produced before it by both sides.

The primary liability of paying compensation is on the owner of the vehicle and when the offending vehicle is insured, it is the Insurance Company which will be liable to pay compensation. The proceeding under the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is in the nature of enquiry.

Where the owner of the vehicle fails to lead evidence to prove that the vehicle was insured at the relevant time of the accident, he will be liable to pay the compensation. Any interse dispute between the owner and the Insurance Company arises, validity of the policy regarding which the owner fails to lead evidence before the Tribunal cannot be resolved in the enquiry before the Tribunal. It is open to the owner of the vehicle to pursue separate legal remedy against the Insurance Company.

The learned Tribunal has noted that from a bare perusal of Ext. A-2, which is the certified copy of the insurance policy and has been marked as Exhibit on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle under the insurance cover from 02.03.2018 to 01.03.2019 GST has been mentioned on 10.03.2018 where the date of proposal has been mentioned as 07.03.2018 and nothing is stated about the policy of 02.03.2018.

Considering the nature of adjudication in a claim case, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order by rejecting the petitions for verification of the signature by an expert of a forensic science laboratory. However, the cost imposed and the direction that the defence of the opposite parties will be struck off is set aside.

With the modification of the impugned order, this civil misc. petition is dismissed.

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise validity of insurance before the learned Tribunal at the appropriate stage on the basis of materials on record.