ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BANAMALI GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgments and orders dated 19th November, 1997 and 12th December, 1997 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in S.C. Case No. 386/A/1997.

(2.) A claim case under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was filed by the heirs and legal representatives of one Gostho Hazra who was run over and killed in an accident caused by Bus No. WBU-1175 on 9-11-1985. The opposite party No. 1 is the owner of the said bus. Both the opposite party No. 1 and the petitioner/insurer contested the aforesaid claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing written statement. The opposite parties, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, as above, did not adduce any evidence and also did not file any document.

(3.) The facts relevant for the present purpose are that the Insurance Company, the opposite party No. 2, before the Claims Tribunal, pleaded that the bus was not covered by any valid policy of insurance at the relevant point of time and the owner of the bus also did not produce any policy of insurance or any other document showing that bus was actually covered by a policy of insurance at the relevant point of time. As the claimants failed to establish before the Claims Tribunal that the death was caused by any negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle or because of any fault in the vehicle itself, so the aforesaid motor accident claim case was disposed of by an award of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the claimants for the death of their predecessor Gosthe Hazra with the direction upon the owner of the vehicle to pay the aforesaid compensation to the claimants. The Insurance Company was, however, exempted from payment of any compensation as the owner of the vehicle, the opposite party No. 1 herein, failed to prove by any documentary evidence that his bus was actually covered by a policy of insurance at the relevant time. After the aforesaid judgment and order, the opposite party No. 1, the bus owner, filed a petition before the Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against the petitioner/insurance company under S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction upon the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the opposite party No. 1 who had paid the sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the claimants pursuant to the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Such a petition was filed with the contentions that the vehicle in question was covered by an insurance policy at the relevant point of time and the said insurance policy was traced out subsequent to the disposal of the claim case by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and accordingly it was urged that since the Insurance Company was exempted only on the ground that the vehicle was not covered by a valid insurance policy at the time of occurrence of the accident as alleged by it, so the aforesaid amount of compensation is liable to be reimbursed to the owner of the vehicle, the opposite party No. 1, on the basis of the insurance policy by which the vehicle wascovered at the date of the accident.