AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. VEER SATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. A. Nos. 339 to 346 of 1996 and M. A. No. 348 of 1996 have been preferred by Agrawal Construction Co. , the owner of the truck involved in the accident, whereas M. A. Nos. 322, 370 to 375 of 1996 have been preferred by the claimants. These appeals have been preferred against the order dated 21. 8. 1996 passed by Mr. A. K. Shrivastava, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, whereby a sum of Rs. 25,000 was awarded by the Tri-bunal to the claimants against the owner, Agrawal Construction Co. The insurer has been exonerated. As all the appeals raise a common question of law on the basis of which these appeals have been preferred, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts briefly narrated are that on 8. 8. 1991 truck No. CPW 7506 met with an accident with Tempo No. MPG 9946 in which 9 passengers had lost their lives and other 9 received injuries. Out of this accident in all 13 claim petitions were separately filed by the claimants. The allegations were that Agrawal Construction Co. was the owner of truck No. CPW 7506 which was insured, vide cover note No. 043501 for the period 25. 6. 1991 to 24. 6. 1992 with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. It was further claimed that the truck was further insured on 8. 8. 1991 with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide cover note No. 225433 for the period 8. 8. 1991 to 7. 8. 1992. The claimants moved an application on 23. 4. 1992 purporting to be under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for interim compensation. The Tribunal had passed an order against respondent Nos. 1 and 4 and against that order a writ petition was preferred before this Court (M. P. No. 895 of 1992) which was allowed and the order was set aside on 28. 8. 1992. The Tribunal was directed to determine the liability of Agrawal Construction Co. and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Later on, a review petition was preferred in this Court on behalf of Agrawal Construction Co. (M. C. C. No. 336 of 1992) in which it was directed that it was not open to reopen the order dated 28. 8. 1992 but if the petitioner (Agrawal Construction Co.) wanted to file additional evidence it could do before the disposal of application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act and it was directed to be disposed of in accordance with law. Agrawal Construction Co. thereafter moved an application on 14. 1. 1. 1992 alleging that truck was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the premium amount was paid through cheque on 24. 6. 1991. It had sufficient amount in various banks detailed in the application itself. The vehicle was also previously insured with the same company. It further alleged that the said cheque dated 25. 6. 91 was dishonoured on 5. 8. 1991 in spite of the fact that there was sufficient money in account of Agrawal Construction Co. with the bank. It was further alleged that from 6. 8. 1991 to the date of accident, i. e. , 8. 8. 1991 the cheque remained lying with the insurance company. On 9. 8. 91 an intimation that the insurance policy has been terminated was sent by the insurance company to Agrawal Construction Co. on 14. 8. 1991. On 12. 8. 1991 Agrawal Construction Co. sent the amount of premium by insured parcel which was refused by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 14. 8. 1991. It was, therefore, prayed that in view of the facts narrated in the application the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was liable for all the liabilities arising out of the accident dated 8. 8. 1991 and it was liable to pay the amount payable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The application was opposed and it was asserted by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. that the cheque dated 25. 6. 1991 was of UCO Bank, Morena which was sent by the insurance company to its bankers, the State Bank of Indore, Morena, on 26. 6. 91. The insurance company received back the cheque as it was bounced on 8. 8. 91 and intimation was sent to Agrawal Construction Co. It was, therefore, prayed that the insurance company was not liable as the insurance policy had already been terminated on account of non-payment of premium. It was prayed in the application that non-applicant (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) and the driver were liable for all the liabilities. Admittedly, the truck was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. also on 8. 8. 1991. It is claimed that later on, on 9. 8. 1991 a letter was sent by a partner of Agrawal Construction Co. to the National Insurance Co. Ltd. which was received by the company on 12. 8. 1991 to the effect that the insurance was wrongly got made because it was already insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Agrawal Construction Co. claimed that on the date of accident, i. e. , 8. 8. 1991 the truck was also insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. and by that time the policy was in existence. Hence it was also liable. It may be mentioned here that Agrawal Construction Co. was the owner of the truck and Lochan was the driver. The matter was heard by the Tribunal and after hearing the parties it passed an order and awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 against the owner alone, hence Agrawal Construction Co. has preferred M. A. Nos. 339 to 346 of 1996 and M. A. No. 348 of 1996 and the claimants have preferred M. A. Nos. 322 and 370 to 375 of 1996 with respect to Claim Petition Nos. 127, 130, 121, 118, 114, 123 and 126 all of 1996.

(3.) MR. N. K. Modi, learned Counsel for the owner contended that an application has been moved under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for permission to file some papers as these papers are necessary. One of the papers shows that cover note was seized and it is a seizure memo. Other documents are copies of certain applications. He, however, contends that the fact that there was insurance policy of National Insurance Co. Ltd. which is dated 8. 8. 1991 and of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. dated 24. 6. 1991 is not disputed. To my mind, in view of the fact that there was an insurance policy, these documents are not relevant. Consequently the application is rejected.