Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh Satnam Singh vs M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd on 6 May, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
RSA-383-1993 (O&M) 1
139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-383-1993 (O&M)
Reserved on : 02.05.2024
Date of Decision : 06.05.2024
M/s Manjit Singh Satnam Singh ....Appellant
VERSUS
M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate for
Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate
for the respondents-Insurance Company.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant
challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.09.1992 passed by the First
Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.07.1988 passed
by the Trial Court.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-
appellant herein is the owner of a Truck bearing Registration No.HRH/8721
and had been using it as a public carrier. The truck was comprehensively
insured with the defendant-respondents for a sum of Rs.70,000/- on
19.10.1976 for one year starting from 19.10.1976 to 18.10.1977. A risk
cover note bearing No.124579 was issued by the Agent of the Insurance
integrity of this order/judgment.
Company, namely, Sh. D.S. Saini, in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. It was
further the case set up that a consignment of 200 bags of CAN-27 weighing
about 100 quintals belonging to FCI was loaded on the truck on 19.10.1976.
The said consignment was to be delivered at Ateli. The truck started from its
destination at about 09.00 pm on 19.10.1976 and on 20.10.1976 at about
05.00 am, when the truck was just about 3 kms away from Ateli, it caught
fire accidentally as a result of which the truck alongwith the consignment
was totally burnt. The matter was reported to the Police and the office of the
defendant-respondents was also informed. A surveyor was appointed to
assess the loss. As per the report, a loss of Rs.47,250/- was suffered on
account of the accidental fire. However, the said amount was not paid. It was
further the case set up that earlier the truck was insured with Oriental Fire &
General Insurance Company Limited vide policy No.2425/1/65/MV/2006
for 12 months from 22.06.1976 to 21.07.1977 against third party. It was
further the case set up that while getting the vehicle comprehensively
insured with the defendant-respondents, the policy with the Oriental Fire &
General Insurance Company Limited was got cancelled. Since the
defendant-respondents did not pay the amount of loss, the plaintiff-appellant
filed a suit for recovery. Written statement was filed by the defendant-
respondents taking the objection that the cover note was issued on
20.01.1976 in collusion with the Agent, namely, Sh. D.S. Saini, after the
truck had met with an accident and that the said note was fabricated. It was
further the stand taken that the proposal form had not been filled up correctly
and material information had been concealed. It was further averred that it
integrity of this order/judgment.
had been concealed from the defendant-respondents that earlier the truck
was insured with the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Limited
and the plaintiff-appellant had made a representation that the truck was not
previously insured. Replication was filed denying the contents of the written
statement and reiterating those made in the plaint.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff firm is a registered firm with
M/s Manjit Singh Satnam Singh as its registered
partners? If not its effect ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff firm was the owner of truck
No.HRH /8721 ? OPP
3. Whether the truck in question was
comprehensively insured for Rs.70,000/- from 19.10.76
to 19.10.76 with the defendant Insurance Co. ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff firm is entitled to Rs.47,250/-
as damages ? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff firm is entitled to any
interest? If so at what amount rate and for what and for
what period ? OPP
6. Whether the Civil Court at Hisar has got the
jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPP
7. Whether the suit is barred by time ? OPD
integrity of this order/judgment.
8. Whether the proposed form mark A has not been
correctly filled up by the plaintiff ? If so its effect ?
OPD
9. Relief.
4. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 22.07.1988. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the
defendant-respondents which was allowed by the First Appellate Court vide
judgment and decree dated 12.09.1992. Hence, the present regular second
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that
the First Appellate Court held that connivance was not proved and also
rejected the surveyor's report which was relied upon by the learned counsel
for the defendant-respondents. However, on the ground of concealment in
column No.16 of the proposal form, the appeal was allowed and it was held
that the defendant-respondents had legally repudiated the claim of the
plaintiff-appellant under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
because the plaintiff-appellant did not disclose the material facts while
filling up the proposal form. It is further the contention of the learned
counsel that the insurance policy with the Oriental Fire & General Insurance
Company Limited was a third party policy and the same was got cancelled
before taking the insurance policy with the present defendant-respondents.
The learned counsel would further contend that Sh. D.S. Saini, the agent of
the Insurance Company, had stepped into the witness box as PW6 who
clearly stated that the insurance was done on 19.10.1976. It is further the
integrity of this order/judgment.
contention of the learned counsel that the truck was also challaned on
19.10.1976 (Ex.P16) and the risk cover note was taken by the Police.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents
would contend that there was a material concealment by the plaintiff-
appellant inasmuch as in column No.16 of the proposal form it was not
disclosed that earlier the truck was insured for third party insurance and
hence the claim has rightly been repudiated.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. As per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankajakshi (dead) through LR's
& Ors. vs. Chandrika & Ors. [2016 (6) SCC 157] there is no requirement
for framing of substantial questions of law.
9. At the outset a query was put to the counsel for the defendant-
respondents as to whether there was any bar to a person holding two
insurance policies. The reply given by the learned counsel is in the negative.
The learned counsel for the defendant-respondents has not been able to show
to this Court any clause in the policy which states that in case an earlier
policy is held by the insured, the second policy cannot be issued or would be
barred by any provisions of law. Further still, the earlier policy itself was a
third-party insurance policy with the Oriental Fire & General Insurance
Company Limited which stood cancelled prior to taking the present policy.
Though it has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the
defendant-respondents that non-disclosure of the earlier policy amounted to
a material concealment, however, he has not been able to show as to how it
integrity of this order/judgment.
materially affected the granting of the second policy. There is nothing on the
record which proves that the plaintiff-appellant was debarred from taking the
insurance with the defendant-respondents after getting the earlier insurance
policy cancelled. It is not the case of the defendant-respondents that the
plaintiff-appellant was trying to recover his loss from both the insurance
companies. It is not a case of double insurance. The contention that the
insurer is not liable to pay the damages and the policy is void due to
concealment of material facts has no merit. Even otherwise, there was no
suppression of material facts by the plaintiff-appellant. The other findings
returned by the First Appellate Court have not been challenged by the
defendant-respondents. No other point was argued.
9. In view of the discussion above the present appeal deserves to
be allowed. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and
decree of the First Appellate Court dated 12.09.1992 is set aside and that of
the Trial Court dated 22.07.1988 is restored. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
06.05.2024 JUDGE
Yogesh Sharma
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
