AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.—The third respondent in M.A.C. 189 of 1983 before the M.A.C.T. Manjeri is the appellant.
The award, making the appellant, the Insurance Company liable for the entire compensation amount, is under challenge.
In proof of the contention that under the Act the appellant can be made liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, the appellant has produced before this court a copy of the insurance policy and the relevant records in regard to registration particulars in respect of the car KLM 2029 involved in the accident.
After hearing the arguments of the counsel representing the parties, we are of the view that the documents require to be looked into before any final order disposing of the above issue is passed.
It is clear from the documents, particularly the document containing the registration particulars of the car that at the time of the accident it was a tourist taxi, the counsel for the appellant submits. If the vehicle was a tourist taxi at the relevant time, the Insurance Company can be made liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. The issue whether the vehicle was a tourist taxi or a private vehicle at the time of the accident can be decided only after taking evidence, the counsel for the owner of the vehicle submits. The counsel there tore made a request that the dispute may be referred back to the claims Tribunal for denovo consideration and disposal.
After considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, we feel that the request of the counsel for the owner to have the dispute referred back to the Tribunal for a denovo consideration requires to be granted. However we are of the view that this request can be granted by putting the owner on terms.
Regarding the Insurance Company, as observed by the Supreme Court it is the bounden duty of the Insurance Company to produce the insurance policy before the claims Tribunal. (See National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Jugal Kishore and Others, and since the Insurance Company failed to produce the same before that Tribunal we are of the view that the document can be received in evidence only on the Insurance Company paying cost to the claimants.
In the light of what is stated above, the request of the second respondent, the owner of the vehicle to have the above issue remitted to the Tribunal, is granted on condition that he pays a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the counsel for the claimant in this court, The amount shall be paid within four weeks from today. Regarding the request of the Insurance Company to receive the documents in evidence, the following direction is issued.
The document will be received in evidence on condition that the Insurance Company, the appellant, pays to the counsel representing the claimant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost. This amount shall be paid within four weeks from today.
The claims Tribunal shall consider the issue after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. After enquiry if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the vehicle at the relevant time was a tourist taxi, then the owner shall be made liable to pay the cost not only of the claimant but also of the Insurance Company. The cost thus awarded to the Insurance Company shall include the sum of Rs. 2,000/- the Insurance Company was obliged to pay as per the above direction of this court.
If ultimately the Insurance Company is found liable to pay the compensation as fixed by the Statute namely Rs. 50,000/- the company shall deposit before the Tribunal the balance amount to make up Rs. 50,000/- and also the interest on Rs. 50,000/- from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of deposits at the rate of 12%.
The appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above. No costs.