Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 323 (MP)

NEMI CHAND v. GOVIND RATHORE

2001-04-11

A.M.SAPRE, BHAWANI SINGH

body2001
BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Biora, in Claim case No. 27 of 1992 dated 30. 6. 1997. ( 2 ) THE accident took place on 14. 5. 1992 when the bus, in which the deceased was travelling turned turtle. On account of death of deceased, a claim petition, at the instance of his legal heirs, namely, widow and children, was filed. The allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus otherwise it would not have taken place. Compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 (ten lakh) has been claimed but an award of Rs. 2,25,000 (two lakh and twenty-five thousand) carrying interest at the rate of 14 per cent from the date of application till date of payment has been awarded. The defence of insurance company in this case is that cover note issued by the Development Officer of the company is not genuine document having been procured by owner of the vehicle after the accident. The Claims Tribunal after consideration of rival cases of the parties came to a conclusion that the accident took place as alleged and, the deceased died in this accident. With respect to the cover note the finding is that it appeared to have been obtained fraudulently. Therefore, the responsibility for paying the compensation has been thrown on the owner of the vehicle, who has challenged the award in this appeal. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the parties are heard and record perused. ( 4 ) MR. Rajpal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of claims Tribunal in respect of cover note is completely unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Precisely, the submission is that the cover note is genuine document. It was issued by the insurance company and the insurance policy was to be issued in due course of time. Therefore, vehicle was insured before the taking place of accident, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Mr. Goyal learned counsel for the insurance company contends otherwise. It is submitted that the finding of Claims Tribunal on this question is based on evidence and it has been held that cover note has been obtained fraudulently. A suit for declaration of this document, as such is pending in civil court, shajapur. Mr. Goyal learned counsel for the insurance company contends otherwise. It is submitted that the finding of Claims Tribunal on this question is based on evidence and it has been held that cover note has been obtained fraudulently. A suit for declaration of this document, as such is pending in civil court, shajapur. It is also submitted that the bus was carrying more passengers than permitted and many were travelling on the roof of the bus. Mr. Kutumble, learned counsel for the claimants submits that insurance company has been erroneously released from the liability to pay the compensation. The cover note was properly obtained and was alive when the accident took place. The insurance company has taken the defence to avoid the liability, therefore, it should be made liable to pay compensation. ( 5 ) AFTER considering and appreciating the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion, that the finding of the Claims Tribunal on issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 is liable to be set aside. We proceed to record our reasons in support of the conclusion. From perusal of statements of witnesses read to us by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is demonstrated that the accident took place on 14. 5. 1992. Cover note is dated 13. 5. 1992. Along with the cover note, the owner of the vehicle issued a cheque towards payment of premium which has been encashed. Issuance of cover note before issuance of regular policy is a normal practice in this field. Cover note covers the vehicle against any loss, followed by issuance of insurance policy in due course of time. In this case, the cover note is issued after payment of premium was made by the owner of the vehicle. It is well settled that cover note covers the insurance of vehicle and claim can be raised on that basis. Cover note in this case has been issued by the Development Officer of the insurance company. Undoubtedly, he is a responsible officer of the company and is authorised to issue such policy, therefore, it cannot be accepted that he is not an authority to issue the same or it was procured from him. None of the witnesses produced by the insurance company have categorically said that the cover note was procured after taking place of the accident. None of the witnesses produced by the insurance company have categorically said that the cover note was procured after taking place of the accident. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that cover note has been regularly and genuinely issued in this case. Having said so, the contention to the contrary is liable to be set aside. Re-sultantly, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation in this case. The contention that the owner of the vehicle was carrying more passengers than covered by the policy has no force. It may be violation of Motor Vehicles Rules but would not defeat the claim of the claimants from claiming the compensation from the owner and insurance company. The filing of the civil suit, would not affect the merits of the claim, if otherwise proved, before the competent court. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is allowed and the finding of the Claims Tribunal on issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5, is set aside. The insurance company is made responsible to pay the compensation awarded in this case by the Claims Tribunal. The compensation be paid within a period of two months from today. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .