Uttarakhand High Court
AO/2/2018 on 21 August, 2023
Office Notes, reports,
anSL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
A.O. No. 02 of 2018
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Mr. V. K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Kanti Ram, counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company.
Mr. Pawan Mishra, counsel for the respondent
nos. 1 to 3.
Heard on the Misc. Application (IA No. 9706
of 2018).
2. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.
has been filed by the appellant/applicant with the
prayer that certified copy of certain document i.e.
Technical Inspection Report may be taken on record.
3. Counsel for the appellant would submit that
objections were called by the respondents but the
same has not been filed so far.
4. Per contra counsel for the respondent/claimant
would submit at Bar that he does not want to file any
reply/objections to the said application.
5. Counsel for the applicant/appellant would
submit that respondent/claimants did not file
technical inspection report of the vehicle involved in
the accident intentionally though it was desirable on
the part of the claimants for disposal of the case; that,
the appellant/Insurance Company was not aware that
the claimants would intentionally withheld these
relevant document; that, non filing of the technical
inspection report of the vehicle involved in the
accident by the appellant/Insurance Company is
neither intention nor deliberate, therefore, the same
may be taken on record.
6. Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to
3/claimants would submit that the said application is
misconceived and frivolous as there is no cause
shown in the application that why these documents
were not filed by the appellant/applicant/Insurance
Company in the Tribunal and it cannot be expected
from the applicant/appellant for the reason being that
the appellant/Insurance Company is corporate body
with all paraphernalia. Its staff is more professional,
efficient and fast they should be in knowledge of the
technical inspection report of the vehicle involved in
the accident; that, there was an accident, consequently
F.I.R., and after investigation charge sheet was filed
with vehicle inspection Report; that, these facts were
always in knowledge of applicant/appellant; that, it is
not desirable from the respondents/claimants to file
technical inspection.
In support of his claim, he relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
'Jaiprakash Vs. General Insurance Company'
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607, in which, the Apex
Court has observed that the police is to file detailed
accident report and that should be admitted as claim
petition. It has been further observed in the judgment
(Supra) that the Insurance Company shall deposit its
admitted amount after its self assessment within one
month of filing of Detailed Accident Report (D.A.R.)
by Police in the Tribunal concerned, therefore, the
submissions of the Senior Counsel that it was
desirable from the respondents/claimants to file the
technical inspection report of the vehicle involved in
the accident, is misplaced and misconceived, hence
this application be dismissed with cost.
7. Perusal of the record, it is evident that no
sufficient cause is stated in the application that
prevented the applicant/appellant from filing these
documents before the Tribunal. The Insurance
Company is a corporate body with full-fledged office,
senior officials and surveyor and it is not possible that
these facts were not in the knowledge of the
Insurance Company.
It is also not the case of the
applicant/Insurance Company that the Tribunal had
refused to accept this report at any stage.
Counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company
failed to show anything that documents i.e. Technical
Inspection Report is needed for any other substantial
cause.
8. In view of the above, the Misc. Application
(IA No. 9706 of 2018) is dismissed, albeit, on the cost
of Rs.2000/-, which would be deposited by the
appellant/Insurance Company in the account of the
High Court Legal Services Committee within a period
of two weeks from today.
9. List this case on 06.11.2023.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
21.08.2023
Akash
