NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. GUNWANTI HEMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the judgment and the award in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 65 of 1974 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Godhra. The First Appeal No. 713 of 1976 has been preferred by the Insurance Company, the opponent No. 3 in the claim petition, whereas the First Appeal No. 837 of 1976 is preferred by the original opponents Nos. 1 and 2, who were the owners of the vehicle in question. The owners complained that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was far too excessive. The insurance company's contention right from the stage of the trial was that in respect of the death of deceased Hemraj, the husband of the original claimant No. 1 and father of the rest of the three minor claimants, their liability was limited to Rs. 5000/- alone and that the Tribunal's judgment making the insurance company liable for Rs. 38,250/- was clearly contrary to law.

(2.) IN order to understand the question, a few facts are required to be stated. The vehicle in question was a luxury bus so made as to carry more than six passengers. On 4-5-74 deceased Hemraj was travelling by that vehicle fro m Indore and was heading towards Ahmedabad by that bus No. MPI 4865. When the bus reached near village Veganpur, about 10kms. away from Godhra, one truck came from the opposite direction and there was collision between these two vehicles with the result that the side portion of the truck pierced into the right side portion of the bus and the whole of the right hand of Hemraj was cut and amputed in a few seconds with profuse bleeding which resulted into shock and haemorhage, which accounted for his almost instantaneous death. Deceased Hemraj was 29 years of age on the day of accident. His heirs had filed the claim petition to have Rs. 70000/- from the owner, the driver and the insurance company.

(3.) MR . Shah, however, invited our attention to the fact that the policy in question, which is not the original but a true copy, was given an exhibit by the Tribunal at the time of delivering the judgment and the document could be said to have been duly brought on record. This argument does not sound well for the simple reason that on the list exh. 8 with which the document was produced at the earlier stage, there is an endorsement by the advocate for the owner himself that they had no objection to the document being exhibited. It is no doubt true that in the initial stages, objection was lodged to its being exhibited, but the subsequent endorsement does away with the earlier one. Mr. Shah's argument is that mere consent to exhibiting document does not amount to proof of the contents of the document. In the circumstances of the case, it appars clear that consent was given to reading the document as a whole and the consent was not limited to dispensing with formal proof of the document. The argument that this document exh. 65. is only a copy of the policy is hardly of any avail, because the original policy of the insurance will be with the owner, who has conveniently kept it back. In a case like the one, he was expected to produce the original policy vide Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act.