AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the Order passed by MACT, Udupi to MVC 655/2004 dated 21.10.2006 wherein the liability has been saddled on the Appellant Insurance Company. The Appellant Insurance Company has appeared and contested the case on the ground that the driver did not possess a valid, license and the- particulars of the policy have not been furnished.
2 The claimant-Bhanupriya who was aged about 11 years old was travelling in Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.CRQ-7020 towards Udupi When the auto rickshaw was near Jumadi Katte Village. Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KA-20-M-8230 was coming from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto rickshaw which resulted in the claimant sustaining grievous injuries, Therefore she lodged, the claim petition claiming compensation. The Appellant and driver of the vehicle appeared before the Court by engaging advocates.
The Tribunal considering the evidence let in by the parties held that the claimant was entitled for a sum of Rs. 81,000/- as compensation as the policy was produced by the other respondent fixing the liability on the Appellant Insurance Company.
Challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed, Along with the appeal, an application has been filed for production of additional documents contending that the appellant had issued the policy in favour of the 3rd respondent Mr. Deepak D. Patnakar and the same was cancelled by it an account of the Cheque issued by the Sri. Deepak D. Patnakar was not honoured, Therefore now the appellant is trying to contend that the liabilities saddled on it by the Tribunal has to be set aside.
Per contra, Mr. Vyasarao K.S. learned counsel appearing for the purchaser of the vehicle who was the owner on the date of the accident, contends that the policy was produced before the Tribunal and it was not center vied fey the Appellant Insurance Company that the policy was cancelled by it and therefore the appellant cannot be permitted to raise a contention that it had cancelled the policy. According to him, there is nothing on record to show that the cancellation of policy was intimated to the third respondent Mr. Deepak D. Patnakar and submits that as a purchaser, by looking into the policy issued by the Appellant, was under the impression that the policy was not in force as on the date of the accident. Therefore, be requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have to notice that though the policy had been produced before the Tribunal, the Appellant did not raise a contention that the said policy was cancelled by the appellant on account of dishonoring of the cheque. For the first time, such & plea is taken by the appellant before us, Though the xerox copies of the correspondences are produced before us, unfortunately, no acknowledgement is produced to show that the cancellation of policy was really despatched and intimated and served upon Mr. Deepak D. Patnakar. If the Insurance Company had produced such a document; this Court could have considered the application filed by the appellant. In the absence of such an acknowledgment, it would be inappropriate for us to consider the case of the appellant. In the circumstances we do not see any merits in this appeal. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we make the following,
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) It is open for the Appellant-Insurance Company to file a suit and establish that the policy was got cancelled and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle on account of the lapse on the part of the appellant, the claimant who is the third respondent cannot be made to suffer.
(iii) Amount if any deposited is ordered to be sent to the Tribunal.
(iv) In the circumstances, application seeking for production of additional documents is also rejected.