Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Karam Chand Kapla & Ors. on 1 June, 2016
$~R-137
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 01.06.2016
+ MAC.APP. 119/2008
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
KARAM CHAND KAPLA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None .
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Sanjeev Kumar died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
15.01.1996 involving negligent driving of truck bearing No. HR 38 9475
(offending vehicle) statedly driven by the third respondent, it being owned
by the fourth respondent herein. The parents of the deceased (first and
second respondents) instituted an accident claim case (Petition No.
366/1996) on 02.05.1996), seeking compensation under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) impleading the appellant insurance
company (insurer) as a party respondent.
2. The tribunal, after inquiry, by judgment dated 27.10.2007, upheld the
case of the claimants about death having occurred due to negligent driving
of the offending vehicle holding the third and fourth respondents herein
jointly and severally liable to pay. Compensation was awarded in the sum
of ₹ 1,35,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum and the liability was fastened
on the insurance company. In the course of inquiry, the insurance company
took the plea that there was no valid or effective insurance policy for
covering the period of the accident, it relying on copy of the cover note
(Ex.R3W1/6) which indicated the time of its issuance to be 5.30 p.m. on
15.1.1996. This plea was rejected by the tribunal on the basis of following
reasoning:-
"R-3 insurance company has claimed that company is not
liable for any award, if any, passed in favour of the petitioner
on the ground that accident took place on 15.01.96 at about
5.20 p.m. whereas policy was taken at about 5.30 p.m. as
mentioned in the registered cover, copy of which is Ex.PW1/6.
R3W1 Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Branch Manager with New India
Assurance Company has proved certified copy of cover note
Ex.R3W1/6 and also copy of policy Ex.R3W1/7. There is a
reference of the time in the cover note, copy of which is
Ex.R3W1/6 but on viewing by naked eyes, it cannot be said with
certainty that time mentioned is 5.30 p.m. and this is
particularly when R3W1 is stating in his cross-examination that
he had not brought the official copy of the cover note and
despite suggestion that there is interpolation in the time given
in the cover note and despite admitting that time was not
mentioned in the policy, the original cover note has not been
produced by the insurance company. Since there is no time
mentioned in the insurance policy and original cover note is not
being produced, I hold that insurance policy was in force at the
time of the accident i.e. on 15.01.96 at about 5.30 p.m. and as
such R-3 insurance company is liable to indemnify R-2, owner
of the vehicle."
3. By appeal at hand, the insurer reiterates that there was no insurance
policy existing at the time of the accident and, thus, its plea should have
been accepted.
4. Having regard to the reasons set out by the tribunal in rejecting the
above contention, as quoted above, and in the face of the documents and
evidence on record which bear out the same, the view taken by the tribunal
cannot be faulted. Thus, the appeal is found to be unmerited and liable to be
dismissed.
5. By order dated 22.01.2009, the appellant was directed to deposit the
entire awarded amount within the period specified which was initially kept
in fixed deposit receipt for a period of six months. On 13.05.2009, it was
submitted on behalf of the appellant that the claimants had already recovered
the amount through execution proceedings and, thus, the application for stay
had become infructuous. Thus, no further directions are required.
6. Statutory amount, if deposited, shall be refunded
7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
JUNE 01, 2016/nk
