SHYAMAL PATARI Vs. RADHA BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal being MAC.APP 56 of 2018 (Shyamal Patari v. Radha Bahadur and 4 others) and CO(FA) 7 of 2018 (Radha Bahadur and 2 Ors v. Shyamal Patari and 2 Others) are consolidated for purpose of disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as both the appeal and the cross objection have emerged from the same judgment and award dated 14.07.2014 delivered in TS(MAC) 240 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, No.2, West Tripura, Agartala.

(2.) In the appeal, the owner of the offending vehicle has submitted that the vehicle bearing No.TR-01D-1518 (Mahindra MAXI Cab) was insured by the respondents No.4 and 5, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the said vehicle was under valid coverage when the accident took place on 29.05.2012. He has contended that as the proper insured documents could not be filed in the tribunal, the tribunal shifted the liability of the payment of compensation on the appellant being the owner of the said vehicle. Later on, the said document i.e. the insurance policy has been discovered. Since, the said document was in the possession of the appellant, by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, the appellant has produced the document for acceptance as the additional evidence. The said document is accepted herein as the counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5 did not raise any objection.

(3.) It appears that Insurance Policy No.322701/31/2012/6270 was in force from midnight of 21.02.2012 to 19.01.2013. As such, it is apparent that the said policy did provide the coverage by way of indemnity under Section 125 of the Indian Contract Act.