KANHAIYA LAL Vs. MUSTAKIM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 498 of 1993 and 499 of 1993 filed by claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the common award dated 14.9.93 passed by IVth Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar, in Claim Case Nos. 23 of 1993 and 24 of 1993.

(2.) The appellants' case, in brief, was that on 2.9.86 Jagdish, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 6 and son of appellant Nos. 7 and 8 (M.A. No. 499 of 1993) and Bharatsingh, son of appellants (M.A. No. 498 of 1993), were going on moped No. CPM 5391 on Dhar Road. At about 3-4 p.m. near National Steel Factory, respondent No. 2 Musa came from the opposite direction, driving truck No. MPU 6224, belonging to the non-applicant/respondent No. 1 Mustakim Khan and insured with non-applicant/ respondent No. 4 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the moped, as a result of which Jagdish and Bharatsingh died on the spot. The L.Rs. of deceased Jagdish filed Claim Case No. 24 of 1993 claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 while L.Rs.' of Bharatsingh sought compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 in Claim Case No. 23 of 1993. The respondents Chhotibai, the previous owner and driver Musa remained absent and were proceeded ex parte. The respondent No. 4 National Insurance Co. Ltd. resisted the claim and, inter alia, averred that on the date of accident, the truck was not insured with it. It was also pleaded that non-applicant No. 2 Musa had no valid driving licence. It was further averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the moped by deceased Jagdish and, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal after recording evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck No. MPU 6224 by non-applicant No. 2 Musa, as a result of which it dashed against the moped and caused the death of Jagdish and Bharatsingh. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the L.Rs. of the deceased Jagdish while Rs. 1,00,000 were awarded to the L.Rs. of Bharatsingh. The Tribunal discarded the story of the owner that after the death of Abdul Gaffoor, the previous truck owner, his wife Chhotibai paid premium to Hatim Ali, the Field Officer of the insurance company and he substituted the insurance period 8.8.85-7.8.1986 to 1.10.85-30.9.1986 and made correction in cover note Exh. D-1, and exonerated the respondent insurance company holding that the truck was not insured on the date of accident, the insurance period had expired on 7.8.86. Being dissatisfied with the exoneration of the insurance company and amount of compensation, the L.Rs. of deceased Jagdish and Bharatsingh filed M.A. No. 499 of 1993 and M.A. No. 498 of 1993 respectively.

(3.) Mr. Dandwate, learned counsel for respondent insurance company filed I.A. No. 3931 of 1998 under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code praying some documents to be taken on record. Mr. Y.I. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants, opposed the application. The respondent insurance company could not show good cause for producing these documents at this belated stage. This incident took place 13 years back. It will cause injustice to the appellants if the documents are taken on record and remand of the case may be necessary and matter will be delayed. We, therefore, reject this application.