SUKHJINDER SINGH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUKHJINDER Singh appellant was the owner of truck No. PB -13C -1661 (Tata 407). It was insured with the respondents for the period from 2.2.2000 to 1.2.2001. On 29.4.2000, the truck was being driven by the appellant. It was loaded with wheat straw (turi). The truck developed mechanical defects and went out of control. It struck an electric poll. The pole fell down along with electric wires. As a result, two buffaloes owned by Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were electrocuted.

(2.) IT was further pleaded that owners of the buffaloes namely Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Singh filed the complaint to the SHO, Police Station, Dhuri on 29.4.2000 against the appellant. The appellant was summon in the Police Station. He compromised the matter with the owners of the buffaloes on 5.5.2000 in the Police Station and he made the payment of Rs. 15,000 to each owner of the buffaloes. The compromise deed was signed by the parties. Hence, the appellants filed the complaint against the respondents for recovery of this amount of Rs. 30,000 with compensation, interest and costs.

(3.) IN the written reply, it was admitted that truck No. PB -13C -1661 (Tata 407) owned by the appellant was insured with the respondents for the period from 2.2.2000 to 1.2.2001. After the receipt of the information from the appellant on 15.5.2000, the respondent had appointed Engineer Rajesh Aggarwal to investigate the matter. The Investigator submitted his report dated 11.7.2000 along with the statement of certains witnesses. It was reported that no buffalo belonging to Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Singh had died due to this accident. This story was concocted by the appellant. Even the correctness of the compromise deed was also disputed and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to any reimbursement. Moreover, no reimbursement is possible under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if the insured has made any payment to anybody without the written consent of the respondent. Therefore, the appellant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the respondents have no liability to reimburse the appellant. Hence, the repudiation was legal and valid and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.