NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. K TIRUPATHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M.A. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19th January, 1983 in M.A.T.O.P.N0. 98 of 1983 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Khammam. By the said judgment and decree, the claimants who are the parents of the deceased were granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- and the respondents 1 to 3 viz., the driver of the lorry in question, the owner and the Assurance Company respectively are directed jointly and severally to pay the said amount of compensation with interest at 6% per annum.

(2.) In this appeal filed by the New India Assurance Company, it is mainly contended by Mr. I.A. Naidu that when once the Assurance Company denied the existence of the policy, the burden shifts on to the claimants to prove the same. It must be remembered that the claimants are outsiders. It is only because of the contract that has been entered into between owner and the Assurance Company, the liability on the Assurance Company has to be fastened. This Court on a previous occasion held that it is very difficult for the claimants to collect the documents relating to policy etc., and it is enough if they are able to produce the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and that there is an entry to the effect that a particular vehicle has been insured with a particular Insurance Company. Mere statement that a particulary vehicle was not insured with them is not sufficient in a case where the claimants have produced the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report which is marked as Ex.A-3 Mr. Naidu contends that the Motor Vehicle Inspector is not expected to fill up that column as there is no material available for him to do so. It must be noted that a Motor Vehicle Inspector is a disinterested person; he is an official who fills-up the columns with reference to the documents that are available with him at the earliest point of time. In this case, against that particular column, it has been mentioned that the vehicle in question has been insured with the Assurance Company. So when that information has been furnished by the claimants by means of the report, the burden shifts on to the Assurance Company to prove whether the vehicle has been insured or not. The Assurance Company is bound to examine a person from their Department and produce the material to show that the vehicle in question has not been insured with them. Since they have not discharged their burden of proving that the vehicle in question was not insured with them and only relied upon a recital in the counter, this court feels that this is not a sufficient ground to be taken into consideration in the light of the material available. When the Assurance Company denied the existence of the policy and they have not examined any person, this Court feels that this is not a case to be remitted back to the lower Court to find out whether the statement made by the Motor Vehicle Inspector that the lorry in question was insured with Assurance Company is correct or not. A statement made by an official during the course of the official duty has to be given preference as against the denial that has been made by the Assurance Company. In the circumstances, I feel that the view taken by the 1ower Court is correct and the order under appeal does not warrant any interference by this Court.

(3.) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.