DHUNIRAM KURRE Vs. RAMKUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act 1988") challenging the impugned award dated 9-2-2009 passed by VIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"), Bilaspur in Claim Case No.105 of 2008, whereby the appellant was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants exonerating the Insurance company - respondent No.5 herein.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, in short, are that the respondents No.1 to 3/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming the compensation of Rs.24,32,000/- against the appellant and respondents No. 4 and 5 on account of death of Shivkumar Khande, in a motor accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley driven by respondent No.4 herein and owned by the appellant. The appellant and respondent No.4 filed joint reply and submitted that the alleged Tractor-trolley was purchased from Anil Agency, Magarpara, Bilaspur on 14-1-2008 and a cover note for insurance of the vehicle was also issued on the same day by the Agency. The respondent No.5 - Insurance Company filing the reply contended that the vehicle was not insured on 14-1-2008 but insured from 15-1-2008 to 14-1-2009, thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. On the basis of the pleading of the respective parties, learned Tribunal framed issues for adjudication of the matter and during pendency of the claim petition miscellaneous applications were filed by the parties. The insurance company filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC which was replied by the appellant but the application of the appellant filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading Anil Agency as necessary party in the case was rejected by the tribunal. The appellant also filed the copy of the cover note supplied by Anil Agency to him which was not considered by the tribunal. The Tribunal holding that the offending vehicle owned by the appellant was not insured with the respondent No.5 on the date of incident i.e., 14-1-2008, fastened the liability upon the appellant and respondent No.4 jointly and severely awarding Rs.2,25,000/- to the claimants.

(3.) ON going through the record, it is found that despite the specific pleading of the appellant that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 5 on the date of incident learned Tribunal did not frame any issue in this regard. The order sheets of the Tribunal from 06-02-2009 to 09-02-2009 go to show that the learned Tribunal was in a great hurry to decide the case as on 6-2-2009 not only the prayer of the appellant for impleading the agency as a necessary party was declined but penalty was also imposed and the case was fixed on 9-2-2009 for final arguments with the direction that if the fine amount is not paid, the appellant shall loose his right of final arguments. ON 9-2-2009 the appellant prayed for time to prefer an appeal against the order dated 6-2-2009 which was rejected and the right of final arguments of the appellant was withdrawn and the case was closed for passing the award. Not only this, the tribunal passed the award on the same date. The alleged cover note which was not considered by the tribunal giving proper opportunity to the appellant for adducing evidence in this regard appears to be relevant documentary evidence as far as fastening the lability is concerned. The tribunal must have taken the document (cover note) on record and have given opportunity of adducing evidence to the parties, specifically in view of the facts that the offending vehicle met with an accident on the day of purchasing itself and also that the insurance policy relied upon by the parties (Ex. NA/4) bears the same cover note No. MG6990171.