Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 238 (JK)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bachan Singh

2008-06-05

J.P.SINGH

body2008
Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal calling in question Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajouris award of November 8, 2002 awarding an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 as compensation for the death of Mohd. Faisal, their son who had died while working as cleaner with Truck No. JK02A-4411 when it had met with an accident on August 11, 1999 at Digdol near Ramban. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vishnu Gupta has raised a short submission to question the award of the Tribunal saying that after having recorded a finding that the owner of the vehicle had got vehicle No. JK02A-4411 insured with the appellant on the basis of fake registration certificate and route permit whereas registration No. JK02A-4411 pertained to a motorcycle and not the truck in question, there was no justification for Tribunals holding the appellant liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle to satisfy the award. 3. Learned counsel relies on Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mulayam Bai and others, 1999 ACJ, 727 to urge that the appellant had successfully proved before the Tribunal by producing a certificate issued by Registering Authority, Regional Transport Officer, Jammu that Registration No. JK02A-4411 pertained to motor cycle `Yamaha, which, had been shown to have been registered in the name of one Suresh Chand of Gandhinagar, Jammu and in this view of the matter, the Insurance Policy being void, in terms of Section 149 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no liability could be fastened on the appellant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants, Mr. Harbans Lal, Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the certificate produced by the appellant before the Tribunal had not been proved by the appellant in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act by producing the person issuing the certificate and the records of the office of Regional Transport Officer, on the basis whereof, the certificate was shown to have been issued, and in that view of the matter no reliance can be placed on the findings of the Tribunal that the particulars supplied by the owner of the vehicle to the insurer were fake. He submitted that claimants cannot be deprived of the fruits of the welfare legislation contemplated by Chapter X to XII of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 5. He submitted that claimants cannot be deprived of the fruits of the welfare legislation contemplated by Chapter X to XII of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the Judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Perusal of the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.3, which had been framed as an additional issue, indicates that although it had not recorded any specific finding that the appellant had proved Registration No. JK02A/4411 to be that of motorcycle `Yamaha and not of the vehicle in question, yet it had proceeded to presume the registration certificate of the vehicle in question to be fake on the basis of the certificate which the appellant had produced before it. 7. In terms of Section 74 of the Evidence Act Svt. 1977 only such documents, forming the acts of the public servants, would be public documents, which may be traced to the result of exercise of any power, vested in such officers, under any law for the time being in force, in discharge whereof such documents had been produced by them. 8. Issuance of certificate by Regional Transport Officer as proof of registration of a vehicle is not traceable to any of his powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which may permit him to issue such certificate. The certificate issued by Regional Transport Officer cannot thus be treated as public document. 9. This certificate, which refers to the entries made in the register of the Regional Transport Officer, would not therefore prove itself by its production alone unless the person issuing the certificate had appeared as a witness in the case to testify about its contents. 10. I am supported in taking this view by a judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in National Insurance Company Limited v. Ajay Deshmukh and others, reported as 1999 ACJ, 1556 and would regret my inability to accept the view taken in Mulayam Bais case (supra). 11. That apart, Evidence Act does not contemplate proof of public documents except by production of certified copies of such documents in terms of Section 77 of the Evidence Act. 11. That apart, Evidence Act does not contemplate proof of public documents except by production of certified copies of such documents in terms of Section 77 of the Evidence Act. That being the case, the appellant having failed to produce the certified copies of the records of Registration Authority, cannot be said to have proved that the registration certificate supplied by the owner to the appellant-insurer was fake. The Tribunal had thus proceeded on the wrong premise to draw presumption that the documents produced by the owner of the vehicle for getting the vehicle insured were fake. 12. Appellant, having failed to prove the documents submitted by the owner to get his vehicle insured, to be fake, cannot thus avoid its liability to satisfy the award of the Tribunal. 13. This appeal is, therefore, found to be without merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Registrar Judicial to release the amount deposited by the appellant in this Court to the claimants on their proper identification, in terms of the award.