RAJ KUMAR AGRAWAL ALIAS RAJJU Vs. SADHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 14. 8. 1997 passed by Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Mandla in Claim Case No. 50/91, thereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,076/- as compensation to the respondent no. 1/claimant and gave a finding in para 14 of the impugned award that at the time of accident i. e. On 25. 3. 1991 the vehicle was not insured with the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company and directed that the appellant and respondent No. 2 are liable to pay the amount of compensation.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the order sheet dated 18. 2. 1995 and para 2 of the written statement filed by the appellant and submitted that appellant very categorically stated that on the date of accident vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3. Along with the written statement, he filed photocopy of the policy by which offending vehicle no. MPJ-8727 was insured with the respondent No. 3 for the period from 17. 1. 1991 to 16. 1. 1992. He lastly submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company and directed the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to pay the amount of compensation.

(3.) THIS Court considering these facts admitted the appeal on 20. 2. 2002 and after service of notice to the Insurance Company number of times directed the Insurance Company to verify the fact whether the vehicle was insured or not and whether Photostat copy of the policy filed by the appellant is correct or not. In spite of number of opportunities granted to the respondent No. 3, no report has been filed nor Insurance Company verified the said fact.