NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. RUKMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A DAR (Detailed Accident Report) was filed by the Investigating Officer. As per the Agreed Claims Tribunal Procedure, an offer of Rs.8,93,184.00 was made by the Petitioner Insurance Company. A Claim Petition was preferred by the Respondents (the Claimants). The Petitioner Insurance Company was required to file its written statement on 09.12.2011. A perusal of the Trial Court record shows that on 09.12.2011, the Petitioner also required the Investigating Officer to file a complete DAR in accordance with Section 6 of the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure. A perusal of the Trial Court record further reveals that the issues were framed by an order dated 14.02.2012, which are extracted hereunder:

(2.) THE Respondents(the Claimants) examined two witnesses and the matter was adjourned for further evidence of the Petitioner.

(3.) IN United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shila Datta and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 6026-6027/2007 decided on 13.10.2011, the Supreme Court laid down that the Insurance Company apart from having the statutory defences available to it regarding breach of the terms and conditions of policy; can contest the Claim Petition on all grounds without seeking any leave of the Court to take the defence available to driver and owner. In other words, an insurer of a vehicle is now permitted to contest the Claim Petition on the issue of negligence as also on the quantum of compensation. Thus, the Claims Tribunal was not right in holding that since the Insurance Company has no statutory defence, there is no need to give an opportunity to the Petitioner Insurance Company to lead its evidence. This Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Kalra (Smt., CM(M).749/2012 decided on 30.07.2012) has laid down that whenever a reasoned offer given by the Insurance Company is not acceptable to the Claimant/Claimants, the DAR has to be tried as a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). In this particular case, the Respondents had, in fact, already filed a Petition under Section 166 of the Act. The Claims Tribunal acted illegally and committed material irregularity in cutting short the inquiry by denying the Petitioner an opportunity to prove its defence. On top of it, by cutting short the inquiry the Claims Tribunal without any justifiable reason directed the General Manager of the Petitioner to appear in person. A perusal of the Trial Court record shows that it has not spelt out the reasons for the personal appearance of the General Manager. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Daiyan & Ors., (CM.(M).1201/2012) decided on 06.11.2012, while dealing with a similar order passed by this very Claims Tribunal, this Court had to remind him that the General Manager of a Public Sector Insurance Company looks after a large region and he should be summoned to appear personally only when there is an exceptional circumstance.