Research › Browse › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 282 (ORI)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAMANI BEWA

1992-09-24

ARIJIT PASAYAT

body1992
JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Though several points were urged in support of the appeal, I find that the only aspect which requires adjudication, is whether New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter described as the "Insurance Company") is liable to indemnify the compensation awarded. 2. A brief reference to the factual aspect is necessary for disposal of the appeal. On 26.11.1981 one Late Golakh Sahu lost his life on account of accident caused by a truck bearing registration No. OSS 971 belonging to Rajendra Kumar Mittal. A claim petition for Rs. 48,000/- was lodged by the dependants of the aforesaid Golakh Sahu, i.e. his widow, widow mother and four children. The Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (N.D.), Sambalpur (in short, the 'Tribunal')on evaluation of evidence, came to hold that the accident was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck and that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 42,000/-. The further question that received attention of the Tribunal was who will pay compensation, whether the owner of the vehicle or Insurance Company? Stand of the Insurance Company was that the vehicle was not insured with it. With reference to certificate of Register of Motor Vehicles of the district of Sambalpur, it was urged on behalf of the claimants that the vehicle in fact was insured. The endorsement in the Register was that the Insurance was valid upto 10.9.1982 and insurance policy was issued by "New India Company, Sambalpur." Except this particular entry, there was no other material to show that the vehicle was insured and it was insured with which Insurance Company. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the claimants that the "New India Company" as appearing in the register of the Transport authorities was the abbreviation for New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the appellant in the present appeal. Accordingly, compensation was directed to be paid by the appellant. 3. In support of appeal, it has been urged that in the absence of any material to show that the vehicle was insured with appellant, the Tribunal was not justified in fastening liability with it. It took a positive stand that "New India Company" is not abbreviated form of "New India Assurance Co. 3. In support of appeal, it has been urged that in the absence of any material to show that the vehicle was insured with appellant, the Tribunal was not justified in fastening liability with it. It took a positive stand that "New India Company" is not abbreviated form of "New India Assurance Co. Ltd." Learned Counsel for claimants on the other hand, submitted that there is no Insurance Company under the name and style "New India Company" and therefore, only reasonable inference that would have been drawn and has been rightly drawn by the Tribunal is that it related to the appellant. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the owner has submitted that he is prepared to produce materials in support of stand that the vehicle is insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. If such material is produced, that would solve the whole controversy. Though a Cross Objection has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of quantum, I find that against a claim of Rs. 48,000/-an award of Rs. 42,000/- has been passed. Therefore, I find no merit and quantum as awarded is affirmed. The appellant has not been able to satisfy me that there should be reduction in the quantum. 4. The question is whether the owner should be given an opportunity by establishing that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. As rightly submitted by learned Counsel for appellant, it was the duty of the owner of the vehicle to place materials in support of his plea of insurance with a particular Insurance Company. Without furnishing necessary particulars, to require an Insurance Company to say whether the vehicle is insured would tantamount to asking it to locate a needle in a mountain. Lakhs of policies are issued by the Insurance Companies. Mere mention that a vehicle is insured with an Insurance Company without particulars of the policy would be insufficient to prove that the vehicle is really insured. That is why insistence is on the giving of particulars of Insurance policy. That facilitates in finding out whether as a matter of fact, a vehicle is insured or not. In this context, reference to Section 151 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act") is necessary. Similar was the position u/s 98 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the "Old Act"). That facilitates in finding out whether as a matter of fact, a vehicle is insured or not. In this context, reference to Section 151 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act") is necessary. Similar was the position u/s 98 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the "Old Act"). The statutory prescription is that no person against whom a claim is made shall on demand by or on behalf of the person making the claim to state whether or not he was insured in respect of that liability by any policy issued or would have been so insured if the insurer had not avoided or cancelled the policy nor shall he refuse, if he was or would have been so insured to give such particulars with respect to that policy as were specified in the certificate of insurance issued in respect thereof. The Tribunal should insist on particulars of insurance being given by the insured. The claimant has the statutory right to get it from the insured. That would help in deciding the question of liability, i.e. whether it is to be discharged by the owner of the vehicle, or any Insurance Company. In the instant case, except mention of "New India Co., Sambalpur", there is no other material relating to any insurance. In the fitness of things therefore, the owner should get an opportunity to establish that the vehicle was insured, and if it was insured with which Insurance Company? 5. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the said question. The owner undertakes to produce relevant materials in support of his claim that the vehicle was insured. If it is found by the Tribunal that the vehicle was not insured with the appellant herein, but with some other Insurance Company, obviously notice has to be given to that Insurance Company. But on the other hand, it is found on consideration of materials placed that the appellant was insurer, that liability shall be that of the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation as fixed by the Tribunal. To avoid unnecessary delay, parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal without any further notice on 4.11.1992. The Tribunal shall finalise the proceeding on or before 15.12.1992. Adjudication shall be restricted to the question whether the vehicle was insured by the appellant or by any other Insurance Company. To avoid unnecessary delay, parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal without any further notice on 4.11.1992. The Tribunal shall finalise the proceeding on or before 15.12.1992. Adjudication shall be restricted to the question whether the vehicle was insured by the appellant or by any other Insurance Company. Materials in this regard shall be produced by the owner of the vehicle. In case the Tribunal chooses to grant any interest, it shall keep in view the observations made by this Court in The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Suli Dei and Ors. 14 (1992) C.L.T. 141. The Misc. Appeal and Cross Appeal are disposed of accordingly.