BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NAGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decretal order dated 8. 11. 2005 made in I. A. Nos. 1050 and 1052 of 2005 in mcop. No:1365 of 2001by the learned I-Additional District Court, Dharmapuri at krishnagiri dismissing the two I. As. , filed by the revision petitioner/2nd respondent in the MCOP to reopen the respondents evidence and to receive a letter dated 12. 9. 2005 as additional document.

(2.) ACCORDING to the revision petitioner, the Driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident was one Srinivasan and not mr. Elavarasan. But, with the connivance of the police official, the claimants filed the petition and therefore, the respondents referred the matter to the cbcid. Hence the said reference letter dated 12. 9. 2005 addressed to the DIG of cbcid is a vital document and consequently evidence has to be reopened and the said document has to be marked as an Exhibit. However, the claimants resisted the petitions stating that the Insurance Company did not raise such an objection in the MCOP Nos:38, 39 of 1999 and 342 of 2001 which are already divided and award have been passed. Mere marking the letter will not improve the case or demolish the claim of the claimants and the said letter is totally irrelevant and the same need not be marked.

(3.) THE anguish and concern of their Lordships referred to above equally applies to the present facts of this case. In the present case, the contention of the Insurance Company is that the Insurance Claim itself is false and according to them the accident never occurred as claimed by the claimants and at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle was one srinivasan and not one Elevarasan. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/insurance Company, there is a collusion between the first respondent-owner of the vehicle as well as the claimants and to investigate the same, they have addressed a letter to the CBCID. If the finding of the investigation is in favour of the Insurance Company, then the very liability to pay compensation would arise for consideration before the trial court. THE document which is sought to be adduced is the copy of the letter given to the cbcid. THErefore, the document which is sought to be adduced as additional evidence by the Insurance Company assumes much importance in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court wherein their Lordships have observed that when filing of such complaint is brought to the notice of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Tribunal shall take note of it before passing the order and if necessary to record further evidence in order to ascertain the genuineness of the claim. THErefore the revision petitioner/insurance Company must be given an opportunity to make a defence as contemplated under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provisions has a overriding effect on the provisions of Section 149 of the Act under certain peculiar circumstances of the Case when it comes forward with a contention that the claim itself is bogus and the accident never took place as alleged by the claimants, which raises a serious doubt as to the genuineness of the claim.