Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1407 (ALL)

Uma Shankar Mishra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

2020-12-01

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER

body2020
JUDGMENT : KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal at the behest of the appellant challenges the judgment and award dated 6.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in M.A.C. Case No. 62 of 2013. 3. A very interesting issue has arisen before this Court namely what should be the fate of an owner who has not been permitted to file the copy of the insurance policy belatedly but before pronouncement of judgment. Though the owner did not file the driving license and/or policy along with written statement, the policy number was mentioned in the written statement. The Insurance company also did not lead any evidence to show that the vehicle was not insured with it. The owner gave application to produce the driving license and the policy. Very strangely the Tribunal rejected the same on one ground that the matter was listed for final argument. Could this has been done? The empathic answer is, no. 4. May that as it may be, the practical solution in this matter now is that the driving license and the policy would be checked and evaluated by the law officer of the Insurance Company as it was a nano car and prima facie license shown before this Court. Copy appended at Page No. 81 is the driving license of Ghanshyam Mishra, whose date of birth mentioned in the driving license is 10.9.1977 and it was in vogue at the time of accident. It appears that hyper technical stand taken by the Tribunal has led to preferring of this appeal as it exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that policy was not in vogue and that the driving license was not filed. This stand of the learned Tribunal has caused both the Insurance Company as well as the owner loss of interest which they may have to pay as the appellant herein has challenged the award. 5. The learned Tribunal should not have taken stand of an adversary at the behest of learned counsel for the Insurance Company just because he has objected to production of document. Rather, as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jugal Kishore and Others, AIR 1988 SC 719 , it was bounden duty of the Insurance Company to have produced the insurance policy. 6. Rather, as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jugal Kishore and Others, AIR 1988 SC 719 , it was bounden duty of the Insurance Company to have produced the insurance policy. 6. May that as it may be, this Court would give quietus to this lis. The amount awarded is maintained and the Tribunal in its over zeal though mentioned, has not granted the amount of medical bills which has not been added for which cross-objection has been filed by the claimants before this Court. The judgment of the Tribunal is hereby modified as follows: (i) The owner and the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severely liable for the amount. (ii) The interest as granted by the Tribunal up to the date of judgment is maintained. However, there shall be an addition of Rs. 90,000/- (rounded figure) of the bills which Tribunal has mentioned and accepted but in its decree and award has not calculated the same which is the submission of Sri. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for respondent-claimant. A rider is made that the officer of the Insurance Company would be shown all the bills and if he is satisfied, this additional amount be deposited. However, liberty is granted to both the parties to prefer review for this additional amount if they do not come to a consensus. 7. The Insurance Company will deposit the sum of Rs. 4,97,465/- plus additional sum of Rs. 90,000/- with 7% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of award and 4% thereafter till the amount is deposited by February, 2021 and meanwhile, look into other grievances of the appellant as this Court has treated this matter in a conciliatory manner at this stage as the policy is accepted now, but as far as driving license is concerned, there are some reservations, hence, the owner shall provide the original copy of the driving license to the Insurance Company. 8. Sri. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate states that Rs. 25,000/- which the owner has already deposited may be considered to be the interest for these three years and he has satisfied with the said interest, hence, the owner may not deposit any further interest. 9. In view of the above, this appeal and the cross-objections are partly allowed. 10. 8. Sri. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate states that Rs. 25,000/- which the owner has already deposited may be considered to be the interest for these three years and he has satisfied with the said interest, hence, the owner may not deposit any further interest. 9. In view of the above, this appeal and the cross-objections are partly allowed. 10. This Court is thankful to all the learned Advocates and Sri. Rastogi, the Law Officer of the Insurance Company. The record and proceedings which according to the knowledge of learned Advocate is kept in PRR Section be sent to the Tribunal forthwith.