Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 897 (JHR)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sabitri Devi

2010-09-15

DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL, SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant at great length. Time was granted to the learned Counsel for the Appellant earlier on several occasions to examine the crucial issue regarding applicability of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to the proceedings before the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. According to Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the said Act will apply to all judicial proceedings in or before any court. 3. Two ingredients are, therefore, essential for applicability of the Indian Evidence Act, namely: (i) the proceedings must be judicial proceedings. (ii) the proceedings should be in or before any court. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. 2009 (4) JLJR (SC) 219, has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a court. 5. It cannot be disputed that the proceedings before the Tribunal are 'judicial proceedings'. 6. Therefore, it is clear that the Evidence Act will apply because of Section 1 of that Act. 7. Reliance was placed from the side of the Appellant upon the provisions of Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to show that the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal is a summary procedure. Reliance was also placed upon the statutory Rules under the Motor Vehicles Act for elaborating the summary procedure. On that basis, it has been submitted that the Evidence Act will either not apply or will apply only to a limited extent. The fact that a Court or Tribunal follows summary procedure does not necessarily exclude the applicability of the Evidence Act. To demonstrate by example, the Court of Small Causes, or a Court of a Magistrate under Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure follows summary procedure, but the applicability of the Evidence Act is not excluded. 8. We do not find anything in Section 169 or the Rules, which could possibly have the effect of excluding the applicability of the Evidence Act to the proceedings before the Tribunal. 9. 8. We do not find anything in Section 169 or the Rules, which could possibly have the effect of excluding the applicability of the Evidence Act to the proceedings before the Tribunal. 9. Once the Section 1 of the Evidence Act says unambiguously that it will apply to judicial proceedings in or before any court, exclusion of such applicability can only be either be by some provision in the Evidence Act itself or by such exception in some other statute, which has over-riding effect over the Evidence Act. Short of that, the Evidence Act has to apply because of the mandate of the Central Legislation. 10. In the facts of this case, the Insurance Company attempted to rely upon a letter of its Investigating Officer for the purpose of proving that the driving license was not valid for the type of vehicle which was being driven and which was involved in the accident. Copy of that letter has been enclosed as Annexure 1 to this appeal. 11. The letter says that the Investigating officer of the Insurance Company has been informed by the Transport Department that the driving license contains certain conditions/ restrictions. The original driving license was not produced/summoned. The Insurance Company also did not make any effort to summon the original registers pertaining to the issue of driving license from the Transport Office. 12. Therefore, the evidence attempted to be adduced, was not admissible under the Evidence Act. The said letter of the Insurance Company's Investigating Officer not being admissible in evidence, there was nothing to support the defence of the Insurance Company that the driver was not properly authorized to drive the vehicle. 13. Therefore, the claim of the Insurance Company in this appeal that it should be permitted to recover half of the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle fails and this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.