The branch manager vs Shankargouda

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The insurer has challenged the judgment and award of the Tribunal imposing the liability to pay the compensation for the death of one Neelamma in a motor vehicle accident.

The facts reveal that while Neelamma was traveling in Mahindra Jeep bearing Reg. No. KA-20-M-1914 on 08.07.2006, an accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep and in the said accident, she sustained severe injuries and died in the hospital during treatment. Therefore, her legal representatives made a claim for compensation before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 3,98,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. as compensation. On the basis of the xerox copy of the insurance policy, the Tribunal held that the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner. Aggrieved by the liability imposed on it, the insurer is in appeal before this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

The point that arise for my consideration in this appeal is,

Whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner?

There is no dispute regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The insurer - the appellant herein has questioned the liability imposed on it on the ground that the policy which was produced before the Tribunal pertains to Act Policy covering the risk of third parties and not the inmates of the jeep. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award of the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the compensation is erroneous. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 -claimants supports the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

Perusal of para 11 of the impugned judgment reveals that the Tribunal has relied upon the xerox copy of the insurance policy. Such a xerox copy cannot be admitted in evidence, unless with the consent of both the parties.

Perusal of the xerox copy, which is placed in the record does not reveal any endorsement on the document that there was a consent of both the parties in admitting the said insurance policy in evidence. Even before this Court, the parties do not admit the insurance of the vehicle. That apart, the insurer has not examined any witness. The said policy is not referred to in the evidence of any of the witnesses. Anyhow, the Tribunal has stated it as Ex. R1 in the Annexure to the judgment. In the circumstance, relying upon the xerox copy and directing the appellant to pay the compensation appears to be improper. An opportunity to the parties is necessary to prove the insurance of the vehicle. If proved, it has to consider the question as to whether the Act Policy covers the risk of inmates of the jeep and then decide as to whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation or not. Therefore, the point raised is kept open for consideration of the Tribunal.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal so far as the liability of the insurer concerned, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the question relating to the liability after production of the insurance policy and then dispose of the case in accordance with law.

To avoid the delay, both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 02.12.2014.