National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sandeep Singh And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 506 j&K

             HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                        AT JAMMU
                                                         Reserved on 19.04.2021
                                                         Pronounced on 23.04.2021

                                                         MA No. 433/2010


National Insurance Co. ltd.                                ...Appellant/Petitioner(s)

                  Through :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

                 v/s
                   <




Sandeep Singh and others
't
                                                                  .....Respondent (s)

                  Through :- None


Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
                                    JUDGMENT

1. The appellant-Insurance Company has impugned the judgment/

award dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jammu

(hereinafter referred to be as the 'Tribunal') in file No. 586/claims, titled,

"Sandeep Singh vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others", by virtue

of which an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- has been awarded in favour of respondent

No. 1 along with interest at the rate of Rs. 7.5% per annum ( except on loss of

future earning) from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

2. When the matter was taken up, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel

for the appellant has very fairly submitted that the appellant-Insurance Company

does not dispute the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of respondent

No.1. The only grievance of the appellant-Insurance Company is that it had

furnished the list of witnesses and even deposited the diet expenses for

summoning of the witnesses, such as, driver and concerned officials of the

R.T.O. but the learned Tribunal without securing the presence of the witnesses as

well as without receiving the reply of interrogatories, closed the evidence of the

appellant-Insurance Company. It is further argued by Mr. Rajesh Kumar that

closure of evidence has deprived the right of the Insurance Company to prove the

issue No. 3, which reads as under:

"3. Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was holding a valid and effective driving licence and vehicle was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy, Route Permit, RC and fitness etc. OPR-I"

3. Now only it is to be seen whether the learned Tribunal has closed

the evidence without securing the presence of the witnesses and obtaining reply

of interrogatories.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of

the Tribunal.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the diet expenses

and also submitted the interrogatories for the purpose of examining the witness.

From the record, it transpires that notice was also sent to the witnesses. However,

for one reason or the other, they did not appear before the Court and also reply of

the interrogatories has not been received from the Court of District Judge,

Kohima. A perusal of the orders dated 02.06.2009, 28.07.2009, 07.09.2009 and

14.10.2009 would reveal that the learned Tribunal has recorded that the

interrogatories be sent to the Court and further reminder be also sent. However,

suddenly vide order dated 26.01.2010, the learned Tribunal without there being

any reason, closed the evidence of the appellant- Insurance Company .

6. Once the appellant-Insurance Company had deposited the diet

expenses and even the Tribunal has sent for the reply of the interrogatories to the

District Judge, Kohima, the learned Tribunal should have waited for the reply of

interrogatories and also should have secured the presence of the other witnesses

through the modes available under law. The appellant-Insurance Company has

every right to be aggrieved of the award as the appellant has been deprived of its

right to prove issue No. 3.

7. In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to learned

Tribunal for deciding the issue No. 3 afresh and the learned tribunal shall decide

the same after affording opportunity of being heard to the contesting parties. The

quantum of award is maintained and the same shall be released in favour of

respondent No. 1 after proper identification by his counsel.

8. Disposed of.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE JAMMU 23.04.2021 Karam Chand/Secy.

                    Whether the order is speaking:     Yes
                    Whether the order is reportable:   No