UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUDHAKAR-MINOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAYILADUTHURAI dated 19.7.1999 made in M.C.O.P.No.6 of 1996, the second respondent therein viz., the Insurer has filed the above appeal.

(2.) BEFORE the Tribunal, the claimant/first respondent herein prayed for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained by himin a motor accident involving the vehicle bearing registration No.PY-02-6005 Yamaha RX -100 belonging to the second respondent herein. The appellant herein is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. BEFORE the Tribunal though it was contended that the motor cycle was insured with the appellant herein, in the claim petition, policy details like policy number, date of insurance policy and period of insurance policy were not furnished. Though in the claim petition in column 17, it is stated that a legal notice dated 16.12.1995 was issued to the insurer mentioning the vehicle number and also the policy number and no reply was received,the said notice was not produced before the Tribunal and no evidence was produced regarding the policy details of the vehicle. But, unfortunately, the second respondent herein, the owner of the vehicle also remained exparte before the Tribunal. In the counter affidavit filed by the insurer in paragraph 2, it is stated as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the contention of the appellant before the Tribunal was that no branch office of the appellant existed at Karaikal on the relevant date and the vehicle involved in the accident was not registered with this branch as claimed by the claimant. But the Tribunal had rejected the said plea on the ground that the appellant had not stated in the counter statement that there was no branch office at Karaikal. The Tribunal by observing that the appellant had not examined any witness has given a finding that the appellant is the insurer of the vehicle. The said approach on the part of the Tribunal, according to the learned counsel, is erroneous. In support of her contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in National Insurance Company Ltd., -v-Anand & Ananda Charan Reddy (AIR 1996 Orissa 52) wherein the Orissa High Court observed that the non production of all policies and all registers cannot be considered as an adverse circumstance against the insurance Company. It was further observed in the said decision as follows: