ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. KISHORE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is at the instance of the Insurance Company against the award dated 11th February, 1998 passed by Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 262 of 1997.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Kishore Singh, had sustained severe injuries on his body on account of a motor accident. He preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal. He examined himself as also the doctor to show the nature of injuries and the permanent disability sustained by him. On appreciation of evidence available on record and looking to the nature of injuries sustained by respondent No. 1, he has been awarded an amount of Rs. 4,24,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the same, mainly on the ground that the claimant had failed to prove that at the relevant point, of time, the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company. Respondent No. 1 has also filed cross-objection for enhancement of the amount of Award.

(3.) THE appellant-Insurance Company failed to lead any evidence, to show that the vehicle in question was not insured with it at the relevant point of time. The driver and owner were admittedly ex parte before the Claims Tribunal. The "driver expired during the pendency of the claim petition and his L.Rs. were not brought on record. Appellant did not make any efforts or inquiry from the owner with regard to the vehicle being insured with it or not. The claimant relied on Ex. P-5 property seizure memo prepared by police soon after the accident. As per this seizure memo certain documents were recovered from truck bearing Registration No. DL-1G-0875. In the said recovery an insurance policy issued by the appellant herein, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Delhi valid upto 28th July, 1995 bearing No. 410 was also seized. The accident had taken place on 2nd February, 1995. If the validity of the insurance policy as given in Ex. P-5 is to be taken as correct, then admittedly on the date of the accident the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant Insurance Company.