Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 187 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Company v. Udi Devi

2005-01-20

DINESH MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BALIA

body2005
Judgment 1. The claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 have been served and are represented by their Counsel. Shri Mahendra Tak appears for respondent No. 8 who is claiming through respondent No. 7, the registered owner of the bus which has been transferred to the respondent No. 8. The service on respondents No. 6 and 7, driver and registered owner of the bus, as they are not concerned with this dispute, for the purpose of this appeal, is dispensed with. 2. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have heard the appeal. The subject matter of the appeal concerns the interim award dated 13.07.2004 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. An accident was caused by the Bus No. RJ 19 P 1008 owned by the respondent No. 8 Babu Ram on 06.07.2002 resulting in death of Bhera Ram. The claim petition was preferred by the heirs of Bhera Ram and an application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 was also moved. The vehicle was purported to be insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the appellant, as per the photocopy of the Policy Cover Note filed along with application. The Insurance Company has taken the plea that the vehicle was not at all insured with them and the Cover Note was a forged one. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount within 30 days. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid interim award dated 13.07.2004, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1507/2004 was preferred by the Insurance Company which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide Judgment under appeal holding that enquiry into the dispute of alleged forged document cannot be held at the stage of deciding the application under Section 140 which has to be decided in a summary manner on prima facie evidence which is found in present case. 4. The Insurance Company relies on an FIR lodged by the owner of the Bus on 011.2003 accusing Pintu @ Pradeep son of Kishan Singh Mali of cheating and causing loss of eight thousand rupees by receiving the amount by way of Insurance Premium and delivering the forged document. A copy of that FIR has been placed for our perusal. 4. The Insurance Company relies on an FIR lodged by the owner of the Bus on 011.2003 accusing Pintu @ Pradeep son of Kishan Singh Mali of cheating and causing loss of eight thousand rupees by receiving the amount by way of Insurance Premium and delivering the forged document. A copy of that FIR has been placed for our perusal. It is on this premise it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that since it is an admitted case of the owner of the vehicle that the Insurance Cover Note was forged one, therefore, there is no room for entertaining the document of Insurance produced before the Court and no award ought to have been made against the Insurance Company even under Section 140. 5. The learned Counsel for the claimants contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the interim award under Section 140 of the Act and the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered in the appeal as the allegations of the Insurance Company are still to be inquired into. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 8 has submitted while supporting the order of the learned Single Judge that the respondent No. 8 was prepared to submit security for repayment to the Insurance Company the amount of award in case the Insurance Cover Note was found forged and in case so ordered by the Tribunal. 6. Without going into the merit of the contention of the Insurance Company about the Insurance Cover Note to be a forged one and that such was the admitted case of the owner of the bus as stated in the FIR, we find that the FIR is founded on the information furnished by the General Manager of the Insurance Company that the Cover Note about which the owner of the vehicle has enquired is forged one. The inquiry/investigation about the genuineness of the document is yet to be undertaken. On that premises, we cannot discard at this stage the document of insurance on the basis of reply submitted by the Insurance Company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or complaint lodged by the owner of the vehicle on the basis of information supplied to him by the Insurance Company. 7. On that premises, we cannot discard at this stage the document of insurance on the basis of reply submitted by the Insurance Company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or complaint lodged by the owner of the vehicle on the basis of information supplied to him by the Insurance Company. 7. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that no interference at this juncture in the interim award that has been passed against the Insurance Company is required. However, we deem it just and proper to order in the interest of justice and to safeguard the interest of the Insurance Company against becoming a possible victim of a forgery that the owner of the vehicle should furnish an undertaking along with surety as agreed by the learned Counsel to the satisfaction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that he shall restitute the amount paid by the Insurance Company in pursuance of the interim award dated 13.07.2004 passed by the Tribunal, in case the Insurance Cover Note is found to be forged and so ordered by the Tribunal. The undertaking and surety may be furnished before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur on or before the next date of hearing before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 8. Subject to the aforesaid directions for furnishing undertaking and surety by respondent No. 8, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.