Bombay High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Sunita Sanjay Gujar And Ors on 8 July, 2016
Bench: R.M. Savant
FA-588-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.588 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1404 OF 2016
United India Insurance Company Ltd. ]
Through its Divisional Manager, ]
DO VI, Laxmi Road, Pune. ].. Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Sunita Sanjay Gujar, ]
Age about 31 years, Occu: Household, ]
2. Harshad Sanjay Gujar, ]
Age about 7 years, Occu: Student, ]
3. Sraddha Sanjay Gujar, ]
Age about 4 years, Occu: Nil, ]
Nos.2 and 3 through their Natural Guardian ]
Smt. Sunita Sanjay Gujar, ]
age about 31 years, Occu: Household. ]
4. Jaywant Laxman Gujar, ]
Age about 67 years, Occu: Retired, ]
5. Laxmibai Jaywant Gujar (Deleted) ]
Age about 60 years, Occu: Household, ]
All r/at Chinchwade Nagar, ]
Chinchwad Gaon, Pimpri Chinchwad, ]
BGP. 1 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:34:23 :::
FA-588-16.doc
Pune-33. ]
6. Mr. Shaikh Mohammad Hanif Siddiki ]
Age about Adult, Occ: Business, ]
R/at 369, Nana Peth, Pune-2. ]
7. Jagdish Ruban Swami, ]
Age about 43 years, Occu: Service, ]
R/at Gandhinagar, Dehuroad, ]
Taluka Haveli, District Pune. ]
8. Shri. Gopal Dhirendranak Sural, ]
Age about Adult, Occu: Business, ]
R/at Vikas Nagar, Dehuroad, Taluka ]
Haveli, District Pune. ].. Respondents
Mr. Ketan Joshi for the Appellant.
Mr. D. S. Joshi for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J.
DATE : 8th JULY 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Admit. Considering the challenge raised heard forthwith.
2. The above First Appeal challenges the judgment and order
dated 18.04.2015 passed by the Additional Member, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Pune (For short "MACT"), by which order, M.A.C.P.
No.217 of 2006 came to be allowed and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein
BGP. 2 of 14
FA-588-16.doc
were awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs.11,38,000/-.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above First Appeal can
in brief be stated thus :-
The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the original Applicants
in the said M.A.C.P. No.217 of 2006. They are the wife and children of the
deceased one Sanjay Gujar who died in the accident which took place on
28.12.2004. The said Sanjay Gujar was riding a Hero Honda motorcycle
bearing No. MH-12-M-4974 on 28.12.2004 at about 12.40 p.m. when he
reached the Mumbai Pune road opposite to Nigdi Jakat Naka within the
limits of Dehuroad Police Station, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, one
Minidor Auto Rikshaw bearing No. MH-12-UA-3159 owned by the
Respondent No.6 herein gave a dash to Sanjay Gujar. The Minidor Auto
Rikshaw was being driven by Jagdish Swami i.e. Respondent No.7 herein
and was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited i.e. the
Appellant herein. On account of the dash given to his motorcycle, the said
Sanjay Gujar suffered head injury and multiple organ rupture as also
multiple fractures and was taken to the Lokmanya Hospital, Nigdi for
treatment. However, the said Sanjay Gujar died on 04.01.2005. In view of
the accident, an FIR came to be registered for rash and negligent driving
against the Respondent No.7 herein who was the opponent No.2 under
BGP. 3 of 14
FA-588-16.doc
Sections 279, 337, 427 and 304-A of the IPC. The Applicants thereafter
filed the instant claim petition. It was their case in the claim petition that
the deceased Sanjay Gujar was 35 years of age when he died. That he was
educated and was doing the business of distributon and sale of
newspapers from last 10 to 12 years and was earning Rs.12,000/- from
the distribution of the newspapers like Indian Express, Loksatta, Financial
Express, Lokprabha and Sakal, as also he was working with Parekh Xerox
Copiers, Chinchwad, Pune and was earning Rs.3500/- from them and
therefore his total income was Rs.15,500/-. It was their case that the
Applicants were totally dependent on the deceased and therefore their
dependency comes to Rs.18,00,000/-. They claimed Rs.25000/- towards
consortium etc., Rs.5000/- as funeral expenses and though their
entitlement comes to Rs.19,27,003/- they have restricted their claim to
Rs.10,00,000/-. The owner of the vehicle i.e. Respondent No.6 herein
Shaikh Mohammad Hanif Siddiki appeared and filed his say at Exh.19 and
claimed that he has sold the vehicle to one Gopal Sural. The Applicants
therefore added the said Gopal Gural as Opponent No.4. However, the
driver i.e. the Opponent No.2 and the Opponent No.4 have not filed their
say or written statement and therefore the matter proceeded ex-parte
against them.
4. In so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, in its
BGP. 4 of 14
FA-588-16.doc
written statement, it is contended that the claim made by the Applicants
was exorbitant. They denied that the vehicle registration No. MH-12-UA-
3159 (Minidor Auto Rikshaw) was insured with them at the time of
accident i.e. on 28.12.2004 at 12.40 p.m. It was their case that effective
date of commencement of insurance for the purposes of making the
Insurance Company liable was from 15.05 hrs. on 28.12.2004 to midnight
of 27.12.2005. It was their case that since the accident took place on
28.12.2004 at about 12.40 p.m. the vehicle was not insured with the
Insurance Company and therefore it was not liable to third party risk.
5. The Petition proceeded to trial. On behalf of the Applicants,
the Applicant No.1 Smt. Sunita Sanjay Gujar examined herself as also
examined one Prashant Kale an employee of Sakal newspaper as also Dilip
Parekh who had issued the income certificate of Sanjay Gujar. On behalf of
the Insurance Company Vijay Jadhav, Divisional Manager was examined
who has produced the certified true copy of the insurance policy. The
Applicants also produced the Police report, FIR, spot panchanama, death
certificate, copy of chargesheet, hospital bills and Form AA.
6. The MACT proceeded to determine the income of the
deceased Sanjay Gujar. The MACT discountenanced the claim of the
Applicants that the said Sanjay Gujar was earning Rs.3500/- per month in
BGP. 5 of 14
FA-588-16.doc
the absence of any cogent evidence produced through the witness Dilip
Parekh. In so far as the case of the Applicants that the said Sanjay Gujar
was distributing newspapers is concerned, the MACT did not accept the
case of the Applicants that the said Sanjay was distributing other
newspapers. The MACT however accepted the case of the Applicants that
he was distributing Sakal newspapers, from which the MACT concluded
that he may be earning Rs.4500/- per month. The MACT added Rs.2000/-
to the said income as income from other sources and came to a conclusion
that the said Sanjay Gujar was earning Rs.6500/- per month. The MACT
thereafter deducting ¼ of the amount for personal expenses held that his
contribution to his family comes to Rs.4875/- per month and therefore his
annual contribution to the family will be Rs.58,500/- and applying the
multiplier of 16 as the said Sanjay Gujar was in the age group of 31 to 35,
worked out the total dependency as Rs.9,36,000/-. The MACT thereafter
granted Rs.50,000/- to the Applicant No.1 for loss of consortium and
Rs.50,000/- to the two children for loss of love and affection. The MACT
also accepted the case of the Applicants that they had incurred expenses of
Rs.97003/- and rounded of the said to Rs.97,000/- and thereby arrived at
the total compensation of Rs.11,38,000/- inclusive of the no fault liability
amount.
7. The MACT then ventured to consider as to whose liability it
BGP. 6 of 14
FA-588-16.doc
would be to pay the compensation. The MACT examined the case of the
Appellant i.e. the Insurance Company that at the time when the accident
took place at 12.40 p.m. on 28.12.2004 the risk was not covered. The
MACT examined the case of the Insurance Company that the policy
commenced on 28.12.2004 at 3.05 p.m. and therefore the vehicle not
being covered by the policy, the Insurance Company could not be made
liable. In so far as the policy is concerned, the Insurance Company
produced a certified true copy which was a print out from the computer
through its Divisional Manager who was examined by it as its witness. In
so far as the said computer print out which was certified is concerned, the
vehicle number was wrongly mentioned as MH-12-UAZ-3159 instead of
only "UA". The MACT therefore observed that sufficient care has not been
taken whilst producing the copy of the insurance policy. Since a computer
print out which was certified was produced, the MACT was of the view
that the same would be admissible in evidence only if the mandate of
Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was to be fulfilled. In the instant
case, the MACT held that the mandate of Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act was not fulfilled by the Insurance Company as there was no
proper certification and therefore in fact there was no insurance policy
placed on record by the Insurance Company and therefore the case of the
Insurance Company that it could not be made liable was not accepted by
BGP. 7 of 14
FA-588-16.doc
the MACT. The MACT further observed that since it is the case of the
Insurance Company that the policy had commenced only at 3.05 p.m. on
28.12.2004, the owner of the vehicle i.e. Respondent No.6 herein would
have to explain as to when he had paid money to the Insurance Company
as to whether the money was paid before or after the incident. The MACT
held that the same would be an issue between the owner and the
Insurance Company and therefore the interest of the Insurance Company
can be protected by passing an order of pay and recover, so that Insurance
Company can catch hold of the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle can also
be seized or attached and if it comes out that the owner is entirely liable
then the Insurance Company can recover the money from the owner
without filing any further proceeding. In the said context, the MACT relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Challa Upendra Rao
(2004) 8 SCC 517 and Baljit Kaur (2004) 2 SCC 1. As indicated above,
the MACT accordingly allowed the claim petition and awarded
compensation in the sum of Rs.11,38,000/- which is inclusive of the no
fault liability.
8. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant
would reiterate the case of the Appellant which was urged before the
MACT, namely that since the Insurance Company had issued the policy in
respect of the said Minidor Auto Rikshaw at 3.05 p.m. on 28.12.2004 after
BGP. 8 of 14
FA-588-16.doc
the accident has taken place, it cannot be made liable. In support of the
said contention the Learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of
the Apex Court reported in (1997) 1 SCC 66 in the matter of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi and others and (1990) 2
SCC 680 in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Dayal
and others. The Learned Counsel would next contend that in spite of
notice being issued to the owner of the vehicle on 14.11.2014 to produce
the original documents including the insurance policy, there was no
response from the owner till the end and the said act therefore shows the
intention of the owner to defraud the Insurance Company.
9. The Learned Counsel would next contend that since the policy
was a certified print out which was produced, there was no requirement to
complying with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act relating to the
proof of the electronic record. The Learned Counsel sought to distinguish
between the document which is physically issued and produced in a
electronic form.
10. The Learned Counsel Mr. D. S. Joshi appearing on behalf of
the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 i.e. Claimants would support the impugned
Award passed by the MACT, Pune. It is his submission that the evidence by
way of computer print out of the policy has to satisfy the mandate of
BGP. 9 of 14
FA-588-16.doc
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and thereafter only it can be admissible
in evidence. It is his submission that since the mandate of Section 65-B has
not been fulfilled, it is not open for the Insurance Company to contend
that the insurance policy was not in force at the time when the accident
has taken place. In support of the said contention, the Learned Counsel
sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in
(2014) 10 SCC 473 in the matter of Anvar P. V. Vs. P. K. Basheer and
others.
11. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I have
considered the rival contentions.
12. Though on the part of the Insurance Company a defence was
taken that at the time when the accident taken place at around 12.40 p.m.
on 28.12.2004 there was no policy in existence as the risk cover started at
3.05 p.m. on the said day. In support of which the Appellant Insurance
Company sought to produce a computer print out of the insurance policy
certified by the Managing Director of the Appellant. In so far as the
computer print out is concerned, it is required to be noted that the
registration number of the vehicle mentioned therein is not the same as
the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident, as in the
said computer print out the vehicle number mentioned is MH-12-UAZ-
BGP. 10 of 14
FA-588-16.doc
3159 instead of MH-12-UA-3159. The MACT was therefore right in
observing that even though the said computer print out was produced,
sufficient care has not been taken by the Insurance Company whilst
producing the said computer print out. Significantly, though it is the case
of the Insurance Company that a office copy is maintained, the same was
not produced.
13. The question that arises is whether in respect of the said
computer print out, the mandate of Section 65-B was required to be
followed. In so far as the Section 65-B is concerned, it applies to evidence
which is produced by way of electronic record which is printed on a paper
stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a
computer. There can be no gain saying of the fact that a computer print
out is the information which is printed from the information which is
stored in the computer. It is in view thereof that safeguards have been
provided by way of Section 65-B(2) and 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act,
namely that a document produced by way of electronic device is
admissible in evidence only if it satisfies the pre-requisites mentioned in
Section 65-B(2) and 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act. In the instant case, as
indicated above, the said print out is only a copy certified by the Managing
Director and is not certified in the manner required by Section 65-B(4) of
the Evidence Act. In the said context, paragraphs 14 and 15 of the
BGP. 11 of 14
FA-588-16.doc
judgment in Anvar's case (supra) are material and are reproduced
hereinunder.
"14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic
record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and
65-A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the
admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these
provisions is to satisfy secondary evidence in electronic
form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the
section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act,
any information contained in an electronic record which is
printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or
magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed
to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under
sub-section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or
production of the original. The very admissibility of such a
document i.e. electronic record which is called as computer
output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions
under Section 65-B(2). Following are the specified
conditions under Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act :
(i) The electronic record containing the
information should have been produced by the
computer during the period over which the same was
regularly used to store or process information for the
purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that
period by the person having lawful control over the
use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in
electronic record or of the kind from which the
information is derived was regularly fed into the
computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the
computer was operating properly and that even if it
was not operating properly for some time, the break or
BGP. 12 of 14
FA-588-16.doc
breaks had not affected either the record or the
accuracy of its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should
be a reproduction or derivation from the information
fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the
said activity.
15. Under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is
desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to
an electronic record, it is permissible provided the
following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the
electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in
which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of
the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable
conditions mentioned under Section 65-B(2) of the
Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person
occupying a responsible official position in relation to
the operation of the relevant device."
14. Since the requirement of Section 65-B(2) and (4) have not
been satisfied in the instant case, the computer print out of the insurance
policy was inadmissible in evidence and therefore the case of the
Insurance Company that the risk was not covered at the time when the
accident took place cannot be accepted. The judgments in National
BGP. 13 of 14
FA-588-16.doc
Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.'s case
(supra) would therefore not further the case of the Insurance Company.
The Insurance Company is therefore liable to third party risk and is
accordingly liable for the payment of compensation. However, by the
impugned judgment and order the Insurance Company has been first
directed to pay and then recover from the owner of the vehicle and it is
observed by the Trial Court that it is an issue between the Insurance
Company and owner of the vehicle and that the Insurance Company can
recover money from the owner without filing any further proceedings as
held by the Apex Court in Challa Upendra Rao's case (supra) and Baljit
Kaur's case (supra). In my view, the instant order in so far as pay and
recover is concerned, cannot be faulted with. The First Appeal is therefore
bereft of any merit, the same is accordingly dismissed.
15. In view of the dismissal of the First Appeal, the Civil
Application does not survive and to accordingly stand disposed of as such.
[R.M. SAVANT, J]
BGP. 14 of 14
