Jharkhand High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Rani Singh on 26 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.695 of 2017
----
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, having its Office at 4th
Floor, Chinta Mani Avenue, Off Western Express High Way, Near
Virwani Industrial Estate, Goregaon (East) Mumbai 400063
(Maharashtra) and also having its Office at Himalya House, 8th Floor,
38B, J.L. Nehru Road, P.O. & P.S. Nehru Road, District Kolkata, PIN
700071 (West Bengal) through its Management Trainee Purnendu
Chatterjee Son of Sankar Chatterjee, residing at B-10/293, Kalyani,
Nadia, P.O. & P.S. Kalyani, District Kolkata, PIN 741235 (West
Bengal).
... Appellant
-versus-
1. Rani Singh W/o late Raj Kumar Singh
2. Reshma Singh D/o late Raj Kumar Singh
3. Avinash Singh S/o late Raj Kumar Singh
All residents of G.G.S. Road, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh.
4. Jagindra Kaur (Mother of the deceased)
5. Anant Rai Hora (Father of the deceased)
Both resident of G.G.S. Road, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District
Hazaribagh.
6. Surinder Singh S/o late Lal Singh, R/o H.N.S. Jhalpo, P.S. & P.O.
Jhumri Telaiya, District Koderma (Driver cum owner of Truck No. HR
38L 3515).
7. Rohinee Singh (Daughter of the deceased), W/o Jateindra Singh,
R/o H. No.464, Sector 13, Pocket B, P.O. & P.S. Dwarika, New Delhi
110079.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Appellant: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
For the Respondents:
----
8/ 26.04.2022 Appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved by the judgment and
award dated 29th August, 2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle
Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No.497 of 2010.
2. Only point argued in this appeal by the appellant-Insurance
Company is that the vehicle involved in the accident is registered as HR 38L
3515 whereas the insured vehicle is registered as HR 38C 3515. Counsel for
the appellant submits that since both the vehicles are different, thus, the award
of the Tribunal is erroneous. He submits that the vehicle bearing registration
No. HR 38L 3515 was not at all insured with the appellant-Insurance
Company, thus, they are not liable to pay the amount of compensation.
3. Lower Court Records was already called for. Insurance Policy was
marked as X/6. This document has not been denied by the Insurance
Company. From the said policy, I find that the registration mark and the
number of the vehicle, which was insured with the appellant is mentioned as
HR 38C 3515 Engine Number is recorded as 50B62389058 Chasis Number is
recorded as 426021BUZ001732. The vehicle is Tata/LPT 2515 EX. Document
marked X/3 is Certificate of Registration of the vehicle which is involved in the
accident. The certificate of registration will suggest that the number of the
registered vehicle is HR 38L 3515. Document marked X/4 is the Certificate of
Fitness of the said vehicle, which bears the registration number of the
offending vehicle as HR 38L 3515. The said document also mentions the
Chasis Number of the Vehicle as 426021BUZ001732 and Engine Number as
50B62389058. Document marked X/5 is the National Permit of the offending
vehicle, wherein the registration number of the vehicle is mentioned as HR 38L
3515. The Engine Number and Chasis Number have also been mentioned
therein as 50B62389058 and 426021BUZ001732 respectively.
4. Thus, from the aforesaid it appears that the only discrepancy is
letter 'C' in place of letter 'L' in the Insurance Certificate, which has been
issued by the appellant-Insurance Company. Comparing these documents, it
is clear that the Insurance Company has insured the Truck bearing Engine No.
50B62389058, having Chasis Number 426021BUZ001732. The registration
number of the aforesaid vehicle is, in fact, HR 38L 3515 and not HR 38C 3515
as recorded by the Insurance Company in the Policy Certificate.
5. Thus, it is quite apparent that recording of registration number in
the Insurance Policy / Certificate of Insurance as HR 38C 3515 in place of HR
38L 3515 is a typographical error. In fact the offending vehicle was duly
insured with the Insurance Company. Since the offending vehicle was duly
insured by the Insurance Company, the ground taken by the appellant-
Insurance Company fails. Thus, finding no merit, this appeal is dismissed. The
statutory amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company at the time of
filing of this appeal be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
