AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard Mr. B. Lahiri, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. V. H. Kedar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2. None appeared for the Respondent No.1.
By the present Appeal, the Appellant is challenging the Judgment and Award dated 19/10/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in MACP No. 192/2000.
The Appellant has preferred this Appeal on the ground that the policy, which was relied upon, was a fake policy, and therefore, same should not have been relied upon by the learned Tribunal, and consequently, the directions issued by the Tribunal to the Appellant to pay compensation amount needs to be set aside.
The Appellant has drawn my attention to the written statement filed before the Tribunal. According to the Appellant there was a specific denial to the insurance policy of vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No. AS-01-A-4694. In respect of Cover Note relied upon by the Claimant, it is stated that for confirmation of same, matter was referred to Kolkata Office.
It is seen from the record that though this defence has been taken in the Claim Petition before the Tribunal, during the cross-examination of the Claimant before the Tribunal, neither such suggestion was given to the Claimant nor anything brought on record from his cross-examination. Furthermore, no independent witness was examined to corroborate the submission made in the written statement. It is further pertinent to note that the Claim Petition was filed before the Tribunal by the Claimants on 14/7/2000 and it was pending for a period of near about seven years and the same was finally decided on 19/10/2007. As such, during these seven years, no Final Report of enquiry was brought on record by the Appellant. Hence, no efforts have been taken by the Appellant to establish its defence before the Claim Tribunal.
In the light of this factual position, the learned Tribunal has recorded the finding in paragraph No.9 of the Judgment, which is reproduced as under :
“9.According to the respondent No.5, the truck involved in the accident was not insured with it and the cover note produced by petitioner is false and fabricated. On perusal of the cover note at Exhibit 39, it is seen that this is the x-rox copy. It is seen that the truck involved in the accident was shown in the name of the respondent No.4 and insured with the respondent No.5 for the period since 14/08/1998 to 13/08/1999 while the accident in question occurred on 15/03/1999. Under the circumstances when the respondent No.3 has come with the defence that the truck was not insured with it and the cover note produced is false and fabricated, it was for the respondent No.5 to prove convincing evidence at least by examining anyone from the truck, but the respondent No.5 did not examine anyone on this vital aspect. Hence, it has to be held that the truck was insured with the respondent No.5 at the time of the accident.”
Hence, prima facie, I find no illegality and perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal.
During the pendency of the present Appeal, the Appellant has moved one Civil Application for permission to tender additional evidence filed along with application, particularly the document dated 3/1/2008. On Perusal of the said letter dated 3/1/2008, it appears that the Cover Note which is relied upon by the Claimant before the Tribunal seems to be originally belongs to Shri Kishore N. bearing vehicle No. OSG-7111 issued on 4/7/1994 for the period from 13/7/1994 to 12/7/1995. As such, the said policy did not cover the date of accident, which was relied upon by the Tribunal. Hence, on this basis, he is stating that this document is required to be placed on record and the matter is necessary to be remanded back to the Tribunal to consider the entire aspect afresh.
It is pertinent to note that the Claimant has filed the Claim Petition in the year 2000 and the same was decided in the year 2007. This Appeal has been admitted by this Court on 12/10/2010. As such, the period of 25 years has been lapsed, the Claimants are awaiting for fruits of the order which was operating in their favour. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that to meet the ends of justice, at the most liberty can be granted to the Appellant to file appropriate proceeding against the person who is responsible to issue false Cover Note to the Claimant and also against the person who has received the benefit from the said false policy. But, in any case, the matter cannot be remanded back to the Tribunal for the lapses on the part of the Appellant to prove the case before the Tribunal. In the circumstances, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
First Appeal stands dismissed.
The Appellant is at liberty to file appropriate proceeding against the persons, who are involved in the matter, and issued fake cover note of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-A-4694 before the appropriate Court and if the Appellant established that there is a fraud played on the Court, then the Appellant is entitled to recover the amount from the person who is responsible for the same.
It is further made clear that the proceeding, if so filed by the Appellant, the same will be decided on its own merits without influence of any finding recorded by this Court in the order.