Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. ... vs Arvind Kumar & Ors. on 19 August, 2019
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 19.08.2019
+ MAC.APP. 725/2019, CM APPL. 36739/2019 & CM APPL.
36740/2019
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate.
versus
ARVIND KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation on the ground that
the cover note which forms the basis of the claim was fraudulent. This issue
has been dealt with in the impugned order as under:-
"20. Respondent No. 1 and 2 have claimed that offending
vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3 and R2W1
produced the original cover note dated 08.10.2014
Ex.R2W1/1. On the other hand, the said cover note was
challenged by the insurer and it was deposed by R3W1 that the
proposal form and insurance cover note Ex.R3W1/1 and
EX.R3W1/2 respectively were issued on 15.10.2014. If the
original cover note Ex.R2W1/1 is compared with carbon copy
of cover note EX.R3W1/2, it becomes evident that apart from
date of issuance, date of expiry and name and signature of the
proposer, all other columns match each other and apparently
the document Ex.R3W1/2 seems to be the carbon copy of the
original Ex.R2W1/1. It is pertinent to mention here that R3W1
had admitted that serial number of both the documents and
seal of the insurer are exactly the same. Further, though it is
alleged on behalf of insurer that the dates on the original
cover note EX.R2W1/1 have been manipulated, however, it has
not been explained how it was done. When it is not disputed
that handwriting on the cover note is of the agent of the
insurer, it is difficult to accept the plea that only dates in the
original cover note have been manipulated. It is not the case
that there is overwriting in the date column or that
handwriting qua dates is different from rest of the document.
Moreover, no explanation has come forward regarding blank
column of "name and signature of proposer" on carbon copy
of cover note. Further, there is no explanation from insurer
side as to why they did not initiate inquiry to ascertain the
discrepancies in the original and carbon copy of cover notes.
In view of this court, there is no reason as to why the dates on
the carbon copy of cover note Ex.R3W1/1 cannot be
manipulated and therefore, when the original cover note,
which appears to be genuine in all respects, has been placed
on record by respondent No.1 and 2, the onus shifts on the
insurer to disprove the genuineness of original cover note
produced by registered owner and to lead evidence to
substantiate their plea of fake cover note by way of some
concrete evidence. However, no evidence was led by the
insurer to rebut the case of respondent No. 1 and 2.
21. In view of above, it is held that there is no reason to doubt
the authenticity of cover note Ex.R2W1/1 produced by
respondent No.1 and 2. Since the said cover note was issued
on 08.10.2014 and the accident had taken place on
14.10.2014, it can be safely held that the offending vehicle
would be considered duly insured at the time of accident and
even if the insurance policy Ex.R2W1/R3 has been shown to
have been issued on 15.10.2014, the insurer cannot escape its
liability to indemnify the loss occasioned on account of
accident happened after issuance of said-cover note.
Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of respondent No.
1 and 2."
2. On a query put to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether
the booklet from which the cover note was issued had been stolen, the
answer is in the negative. On a query as to whether any inquiry was initiated
against the appellant's agent, who had signed the cover note, the answer is in
the negative.
3. What emanates from the above is that the cover note was issued by
the appellant's agent. It had the seal of the appellant and the handwriting of
the appellant's agent has not been challenged. In view of the mere statement
of the appellant that the policy was fraudulent is an untenable argument.
4. The learned MACT had found that the original cover note and its
carbon copy had a lot of similarities. It found that apart from date of
issuance, date of expiry, name and signature of the proposer, all other
columns matched each other and the document produced by the appellant
i.e. Ex. R3W1/2 seemed to be the carbon copy of the original Ex. R2W1/1;
the serial number of both the documents matched, so did the seal of the
appellant; no overwriting could be seen in the original cover note. The
alleged manipulation, if any, has not been explained or substantiated. The
appellant did not initiate inquiry to ascertain the discrepancies in the original
and the carbon copy of the cover note. The appellant has been unable to
prove that the original cover note produced by the claimant was fraudulent
or fake.
5. In view of the above, the appellant's contention is untenable and is
accordingly rejected.
6. There is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
7. The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/-, alongwith interest accrued
thereon, shall be deposited in the 'AASRA Fund'.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
AUGUST 19, 2019
RW
