Bombay High Court
Raju Chunnilal Mandhane vs Prem Ringa Darsinge And 3 Others on 3 July, 2017
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
1 jfa339of06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2006
Raju Chunilal Mundhane,
Aged about 50 years,
Occ. Owner of Truck,
No.MH-27/A-2503,
R/o. S.T.Stand Road, Achalpur,
Dist. Amravati ... APPELLANT
..... VERSUS
.....
1 Prem s/o. Ringa Darsinga,
Aged - Major, R/o. Dhamani,
Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati
2 Ringa s/o.Banshi Darsinga,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o. Dhamani, Tq. Achalpur,
Dist. Amravati
3 Suresh Ramkrishna Basu, (DELETED)
Aged about 44 years, occ. Driver,
R/o. Karajgaon, Tq. Achalpur,
Dist. Amravati
4 The National Insurance company Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Branch at Somara Complex,
Jaistambh Chowk, Amravati ...RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 08:54:10 :::
2 jfa339of06.odt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri.Pravin.S.Patil, Advocate for Appellant
Shri. M.A. Hussain, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1&2
Shri. Sachin Zoting , Advocate for Respondent No.4.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM :DR.SMT. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : JULY 3, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 This appeal is preferred against the judgment and
order dated 3.1.2006 passed by Chairman - Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal, Amravati in M.A.C.P. No.391 of 1997.
2 A very short point is involved in this appeal relating
to the liability of the Insurance Company. Needless to state
that, the appeal is preferred by the original owner
challenging the liability imposed on him exclusively, for
payment of compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs inclusive of the
amount granted under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles
Act.
3 According to learned counsel for appellant, there was
clear evidence showing that the appellant has insured the
3 jfa339of06.odt
offending vehicle, the truck bearing No. MH 27/A-3502
with respondent no. 4. He has also produced the copy of
cover note, his own affidavit and also the copy of
registration particulars from Regional Transport Office,
Amravati. The only defence raised by Insurance Company
was that the vehicle was not insured with it. However, in
the face of this evidence which was in the form of
documents, the Tribunal should have held Insurance
company jointly and severally liable alongwith appellant to
deposit compensation amount.
4 In this respect, I have perused the reasons given by
the learned Tribunal in para nos. 22 to 24 of his impugned
judgment. On perusal of those reasons, it has to be held
that Tribunal has committed any error in holding that the
alleged cover note and the registration particulars are not
of the same vehicle.
5 It is pertinent to note that, a specific defence was
raised by Insurance Company in para no. 10 denying that
the vehicle was insured with it and calling upon claimants
4 jfa339of06.odt
to strictly prove that on the alleged date, the said vehicle
was insured with it. Only this ground, respondent no.4,
the Insurance Company had denied its liability to
compensate the claimants. In the affidavit filed on behalf
of the Insurance Company, in reply to the application filed
under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act it was
categorically stated that the cover note, which is produced
by the claimant does not pertain to the offending vehicle.
No doubt, appellant who is the owner of the vehicle has
controverted the said averment. However, the fact remains
that though Insurance company had given an application
Exh. 57 calling upon the Appellant to produce on record the
original cover note or the policy, it was not produced by the
appellant owner.
6 In such situation, the Tribunal has placed reliance on
whatever cover note which was produced on record by the
claimant, to verify whether it pertains to the offending
vehicle. The particulars of the offending vehicle were given
in the Registration Certificate. Both these documents, cover
5 jfa339of06.odt
note and particulars of registration are produced in the
paper book at Annexure I & IV. On the bare perusal of
these documents, it is more than sufficient to infer that the
description of the vehicle given in cover note does not
correspond to the registration particulars of the offending
vehicle. It is pertinent to note that the cover note
Annexure-I bears the No. 24347; whereas the Registration
Certificate, the number of policy is given as 24378.
Therefore, there is basic difference even in the number of
the policy.
7 Secondly, as regard the chassis number, in the cover
note it is stated as No. 3440737243224 whereas in the
Registration Certificate, the chassis number is given in as
344073724324. Therefore, it is clear that the chassis
number given in the registration particulars and the cover
note is totally different, in addition to the fact that even the
number is different in both the documents.
6 jfa339of06.odt
8 In such situation, no fault can be found if the
Tribunal refused to place reliance on cover note, to hold
that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the
respondent no. 4- Insurance Company. If despite the fact
that opportunity was given tot he appellant to produce the
original documents like the cover note and the policy of
Insurer, he has not produced the same, now Appellant can
not say that it was the duty of the Insurance Company to
produce the said documents as it was custodian thereof.
9 From the documents, which are produced on record,
it is clear that the cover note does not pertain to the
offending vehicle. Hence, Insurance Company can not be
held jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimant.
Hence, no fault is found in the judgment and order of the
Trial Court. Appeal therefore, had no merit and stands
dismissed.
10 It is pointed out that, the appellant has deposited
entire amount of compensation in the Court. The
7 jfa339of06.odt
respondent nos. 1 & 2 claimants are entitled to withdraw
the same as per the award passed by the Tribunal.
Appeal stands disposed of in above terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE
belkhede, PA
