AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Though the respondents are duly served, they are neither present nor represented. The record shows that on behalf of the 2nd respondent, i.e. the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, several adjournments have been sought in the past.
Apart from the earlier adjournments, the record shows that, in recent times, adjournments were granted at the request of the 2nd respondent on 20.06.2025 and 12.11.2025. On 18.07.2026, when the matter was called out, there was no representation on behalf of respondent no. 2; rather, the legal representative of respondent no. 2 had already been brought on record. However, to give the 2nd respondent an additional opportunity, the matter was adjourned to 31st July 2026. Even today, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. Since this is an old appeal and several opportunities have already been given to the respondents, there is no question of further adjournment of this appeal.
This appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and Award dated 23rd September 2014, in Compensation Case No. 07 of 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Jamshedpur (said Tribunal).
Mr Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that though the appellant had raised the specific plea that the offending vehicle was not insured with them on the date of the accident and the owner, i.e. the respondent no.2 herein, was relying upon a fake policy. He submitted that such issue, though framed, was answered against the appellant - Insurance Company on the ground that no specific plea was taken in the written statement. He submitted that this Court issued a limited remand directing the Tribunal to determine the said issue.
Mr Manish Kumar pointed out that, by order dated 1 March 2023, the Tribunal determined this issue by holding that the offending vehicle was not insured at the relevant time and that the policy relied on by the owner did not pertain to the offending vehicle. He therefore submitted that this appeal should be allowed and that the liability imposed on the appellant should be set aside.
In this case, the Tribunal was not justified in answering the issue of whether the offending vehicle was insured at the relevant time against the appellant-Insurance Company on the spacious plea that no such contention was raised by the appellant-Insurance Company in its written statement.
The record shows that, in paragraph 2 of its written statement, the appellant had clearly pleaded that the offending vehicle was not insured with it and, as such, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. Further, in para 3 of its written statement, the appellant-Insurance Company specifically pleaded that the insurance policy submitted by the applicant was fake. There was further pleading in paragraph 6 of the written statement that the Office Code of Oriental Insurance Company Limited (appellant herein) was 333000 and not 337510.
Therefore, a Coordinate Bench, by order dated 01.11.2022, issued a limited remand directing the Tribunal to render a finding on the issue as to whether the offending vehicle was indeed insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.
The contents of the order dated 01.11.2023 are transcribed below for the convenience of reference:-
“Heard the parties.
2.Instant appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and award dated 23.09.2014, passed in Compensation Case No. 07 of 2009, by the learned District Judge-III-cum-MACT, Jamshedpur, whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to award a sum of Rs.2,52,600/- to the claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till its final realization and directed the appellant-Insurance Co. to make payment within a period of 30 days of this order.
3.Before passing the final award, the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and examining the documents brought on record, framed eight issues for proper adjudication of the case.
4.Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Co. very fairly submits that Insurance Co. is aggrieved with issue No. III only and has become subject matter of challenge and hence, this appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel submits that the findings of the learned Tribunal is erroneous since the learned Tribunal has come to a finding without taking into consideration that the documents of the Insurance Policy which has been produced before the learned Tribunal was a fake one. Learned counsel submits that though specific stand was taken by the appellant-Insurance Co. in the written statement but surprisingly the learned Tribunal in its finding in the impugned order at para-9 has come to a conclusion that there is no specific denial of the Insurance Policy by the Insurance Co. Learned counsel submits that the findings of the learned Tribunal is perverse and against the material brought on record.
5.Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that genuineness of the Insurance Policy cannot be questioned as ample opportunity was given to the Insurance Co. to lead evidences but since they failed to do so, rightly, the learned Tribunal has come to a finding and has slapped the Insurance Co. with the aforesaid amount, which requires no interference.
6.After hearing the parties and after perusing the documents brought on record and the lower court record, prima facie it appears that the documents related to Insurance Policy, varies from each other in different records. Under such circumstances, it would be proper if an opportunity is given to the parties to adduce their respective evidences before the learned Tribunal with respect to Issue No. III (Whether the said vehicle was insured at the relevant time?).
7.Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for deciding the issue No. III as framed by it, in accordance with law. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidences regarding the genuineness of the Insurance Policy.
8.If the matter is decided in favour of the claimants, the appellant Insurance Co. is directed to satisfy the Award as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the Award. If the matter is decided against the claimant and in favour of the appellant-Insurance, let a finding to that effect be recorded by the learned Tribunal and the same shall be made available to this Court and thereafter, the final order shall be passed.
9.Let the entire exercise will be done within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
10.Office is directed to immediately send the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Court concerned for needful.
11.Let the parties appear the learned Tribunal after three weeks, preferably by 24.11.2022. If the parties failed to appear, the learned Tribunal is free to issue notice and thereafter, pass final order, after hearing the parties and after adducing the evidences on issue No. III.
12.List this case accordingly.”
Pursuant to the above order and the limited remand, the Tribunal by its order dated 1st March, 2023 has returned a categorical finding that “the piece of document and claimed by the applicant to be an insurance policy issued by the appellant herein has not only been empathetically denied by the latter to have been issued for the offending vehicle but has also been so proved by way of Exhibit-A showing that it was issued for some different vehicle.” The Tribunal has held that therefore, “it becomes crystal clear that the offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident.” Accordingly, the 3rd Issue was decided against the applicant and in favour of the appellant herein.
The finding regarding the remanded issue, as contained in the order dated 1st March 2023, has not been challenged by any of the respondents, including the 2nd respondent, i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle. In the absence of any challenge, it would not be proper for this Court not to rely upon the finding now reached by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, this appeal will have to be allowed and is hereby allowed, and the appellant- Insurance Company is absolved of the liability of paying the compensation amount as determined to the 1st respondent herein. However, since, in such matters, the liability of the owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company is usually joint and several, the impugned Award will have to be modified, and the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal will now have to be paid by the 2nd respondent (now the legal representative of the 2nd respondent) to the 1st respondent.
The 1st respondent is accordingly permitted to execute the award against the 2nd respondent and recover the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned Judgment and Award dated 23rd September 2014.
The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms without any order for costs.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant in this matter can now be returned to the appellant.