NAGARAJU Vs. A R LINGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant requesting to fasten the liability on the second respondent-Insurance Company and also to enhance the amount of compensation awarded on 12. 3. 2001 in M. V. C. No. 431/1993 by the M. A. C. T. at Mandya.

(2.) REGARDING first ground, it is argued for the appellant- claimant that the Tribunal committed an error in not fastening liability with the Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company now submits that the vehicle had the valid insurance coverage as on the date of accident. Still important questions namely, inspite of the fact that vehicle has insurance coverage, whether Insurance Company can plead before the Tribunal that vehicle had no insurance coverage and whether an adverse inference can be drawn against Insurance Company when it fails to produce record of insurance policy when called upon, more so, in the absence of participation in the proceedings by the owner of vehicle, require to be answered.

(3.) FIRSTLY, it may be noted that in para No. 16 of claim petition claimant pleaded that the policy for the vehicle was issued by United India Insurance Company, Branch Office, Finance House, II Floor, 19, Pattullecs Road, Madras-2. Further, in the cause title also, while showing name of respondent No. 2 as insurer, policy number with validity period from 1. 10. 1992 to 30. 9. 1993 had been specifically mentioned. Inspite of said particulars, Insurance Company pleaded that the bus No. KA- 11/923 is not insured with it by first respondent-owner and hence, it is not a necessary party to the petition and even if it is established that the first respondent is the owner of vehicle and the same is insured with it under policy if any, given by it covering the risk as on the date of accident its liability is only as per the terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of the IMV Act. With this pleading on record the parties went for trial.