Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 78 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sohal Lal

2005-01-10

AJAY RASTOGI, S.K.KESHOTE

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - This cluster of special appeals arises out of one and the same motor vehicle accident; the learned Single Judge also decided all miscellaneous appeals by a common order, thus these are taken up for hearing together and being decided by this common judgment. 2. The only contention made by the learned counsel for the non-claimant appellant, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the appellant Company') is that the appellant has wrongly been fastened with the liability of reimbursement of the award of compensation passed against the owner of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant Company urged that on the date of the accident the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant-Company. 3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents supported the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. We have given our anxious an thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the record of the case. 5. In the reply to the claim petition the appellant-Company pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured by appellant-Company for the period from 20.10.1993 to 19.10.1994 i.e. for three months. The accident took place on 16.5.1994. 6. On this point the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the appellant-Company, framed Issue No. 4 in Claim Cases No. 92/1994 110/1994 and 149/1994 and Issue No. 3 in Claim Cases No. 130/1994 and 131/1994, a common issue, which reads as under: "Issue No. 4 "AAYA BUS UPROKTA DURGHATNA KE DIVAS, SAMAYA VA DINANK KO BUS NO. RJ 23 P 0180 APRARTHI NO. 3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KE YAHAN COVERNOTE NO. 644454 DINANK 20.10.1993 SE 19.10.1994 KE AVADHI MEI BIMIT THI." Issue No. 3 "AAYA BUS NO. RJ 23 P 0180 PRARTHI NO. 3 BIMA COMPANY KE YAHAN 20.10.1993 SE 19.10.1994 TAK 3 MAHA KE LIYE HI BIMIT THI VA DURGHATNA DINANK 16.5.1994 KO YAHAN BUS PRARTHI NO. 3 BIMA COMPANY KE YAHAN BIMIT NA HONE SE BIMA COMPANY PRATIKAR HETU UTTARDAAYI NAHI HAIN." 7. RJ 23 P 0180 PRARTHI NO. 3 BIMA COMPANY KE YAHAN 20.10.1993 SE 19.10.1994 TAK 3 MAHA KE LIYE HI BIMIT THI VA DURGHATNA DINANK 16.5.1994 KO YAHAN BUS PRARTHI NO. 3 BIMA COMPANY KE YAHAN BIMIT NA HONE SE BIMA COMPANY PRATIKAR HETU UTTARDAAYI NAHI HAIN." 7. On the application dated 9.4.1996, at page No. B/9/8 on the record of the case of the owner of the offending vehicle the learned Tribunal under its order dated 3.9.1996 directed the appellant-Company to produce the record of cover note No. 654454 before it 8. After considering the documents produced by the appellant-Company which are marked as NA-1, NA-2 and NA-3, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that there are cuttings on the material dates. NA-1 is the proposal form for insurance in favour of the owner of the offending vehicle, on the basis of which the Cover-Note NA-2 was issued. The receipt of the premium amount is NA-3. 9. After considering the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence produced by the appellant-Company, the learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding of fact that the vehicle was insured for the period from 20.10.1993 to 19.10.1994 but afterwards the record was tempered with and it was made for three months. This finding of fact recorded after scanning the entire evidence, documentary as well as oral, by the learned Tribunal, has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge in the miscellaneous appeals. 10. We do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. It appears to be a case where after accident the over writings were made in the insurance documents i.e. policy of the offending vehicle. That apart the claimants are not bound by that deeds and misdeeds of the appellant-Company. 11. In the result all the special appeals fail and the same are dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeals, the stay applications, filed therewith, do not survive and the same are also dismissed. No order as to costs.Special appeals dismissed. *******