ANAPU ADINARAYANA Vs. PREMANANDA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein, who is the claimant in O.P. No. 35 / 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Kakinada, filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 60,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him. The accident took place on 20-11-1985 between Annavaram and Bendapudi in East Godavari District on National Highway Road No.5. The Claimant is the driver of the lorry bearing No.ADI 7754. The other vehicle which involved in the accident is OSC 8343. R-3 is the Insurance Company, so far as the Orissa Vehicle is concerned. R-5 is the Insurance Company so far as Andhra Vehicle is concerned for which the claimant is the driver. The learned Judge considered the evidence of P.W.I and no evidence having been adduced on behalf of the otherside, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle OSC 8343. Having found that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently and that the claimant received injuries in the accident, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in all. There is a difference of opinion with regard to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.3 is the doctor who examined the claimant just before giving his evidence. The disability that has been suffered by him has been rightly assessed and the claimant has been awarded Rs.7,000/- is quite reasonable. It does not warrant any interference. The amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded in all towards compensation is reasonable and the interest ought to have been at 12% from the date of filing of the petition. Sri D. Sudarsana Reddy, contended that the Tribunal failed to fix the liability on R-

(2.) The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company, contended that the failure of the claimant in not adducing evidence that there is a valid cover on the date of accident with R-3 is fatal and the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the liability cannot be fixed. Normally, in these cases, it is very difficult for the claimants to adduce evidence with regard to the Insurance Policy number, commencement of the Policy or expiry date of the policy. The only information they can obtain is from the police people who are expected to have first information report and the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report of that accident. The Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report which is generally termed as Accident Report, contains a column indicating the number of the policy, commencement of the policy etc. The said column has to be filled by the material that would be available at the time of accident with the vehicle that involved in the accident. Generally, Insurance Policy book will be carried along with the vehicle. So, the entry that has been made by the Motor Vehicle Inspector while discharging his duties cannot be said that it was a wrong entry or wrong information that has been supplied by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. When the number of the Policy, commencement of the policy and expiry of the policy have been furnished by the claimant, it is the duty of the Insurance Company to produce the policy or adduce evidence to the effect in case if they take the stand that there is no policy at all. Mere denial that the vehicle was not insured and there is no policy is not sufficient in a case where particulars of the number of the policy, expiry date and commencement date have been furnished either in the original petition or in the evidence that has been let in by the claimants. The Insurance Company also cannot take advantage of the fact that the original policy is with the owner and the owner may be directed to produce the policy. When the Insurance Company is expected to maintain the records and when the policy number has been given, they cannot throw blame on the claimant for not pursuing or for not producing the same. In this case, during the time of trial, notice has been given to the counsel for the Insurance Company to produce the policy bearing No.IC No. A / 3 / 009613 Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Limited with validity upto 6-5-1986 with respect to lorry OAC 8343 belonging to Sri Kewal Singh son of Mala Singh, N. Gandhepure, Cuttack, Orissa State. If really that policy was there, it must be available with the Company. Reply has been given to the notice. They have not specifically denied that they have not issued any policy bearing No. I.C. No. A / 3 / 009613. If that policy number is not available, the Company can adduce evidence to that effect. If there is no policy with that digit number, they can produce the material to show that there is no insurance policy with that digit numbers. Either of the course has not been adopted by the Insurance Company except denying that there is no insurance at all. Failure on the part of the Insurance Company in not furnishing the details when particular number has been given raises a presumption that if the document has been produced an adverse inference can be drawn. In this case, since they have not produced that policy nor adduced any evidence that there is no policy issued by them, the only inference that can be drawn is that the policy was there and they have withheld the same and they have not produced the material evidence. So, the Insurance Company R-3 is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and interest.

(3.) Accordingly, the C.M.A. is disposed of.