NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. AZIZUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against an order dated 22nd January, 1992 passed by the learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MIC No. 35/90. The order was passed on an application under section 140 filed by the claimant-respondent No. 1. By the impugned order the learned Tribunal was pleased to direct the opposite parties, that is the appellant insurer and the opposite party No. 2, the owner of the vehicle to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/-.

(2.) On 23rd November 1989 one Azizul suffered serious injuries in an accident in which the vehicle bearing registration No. WBY 5158 (a private bus) owned by the opposite party No. 2 was involved. The vehicle in question was insured with the appellant, the Insurance Company. Consequent upon the accident and the injuries suffered by the said Azizul, the claimant (the opposite party No. 1) filed an application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the learned Tribunal. On service of notice of the proceeding that was initiated on the basis of such application under section 140, both the appellant and the owner of the vehicle entered appearance. On 22nd January, 1992, the application under section 140 was posted for hearing. The appellant Insurance Company duly filed hazira, while the owner of the vehicle chose not to be present on that date. At the time of hearing, the appellant Insurance Company also chose not to be available. In the circumstances, the learned Tribunal took up the matter exparte. The documents produced by the claimant were exhibited. Amongst the documents a Xerox copy of the insurance policy was exhibited. The policy showed that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant insurer. After considering the materials on record, and the documentary evidence produced by the claimant, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order, although was passed exparte as the appellant was not diligent enough to contest the case, cannot be sustained on the ground that the offending vehicle was actually not insured with the appellant insurer, and on the basis of a Xerox copy of the policy, the learned Tribunal should not have granted relief to the claimant. He contends that in terms of provisions contained in Rules 329, 330 and 339, the claimant, for the purpose of filing the application under section 140 was entitled to have the requisite information from the registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act free of charges and the claimant was required to produce such authenticated information in prescribed (Form Comp-C) in support of the application under section 140. It is his further contention, in the absence of such information produced before the learned Tribunal in prescribed form, the learned Tribunal should not have accepted the unauthorized xerox copy of the policy produced by the claimant in support of the claim for compensation. In support of his contention that the xerox copy of the policy should not have been considered to be a sufficient piece of documentary evidence for the purpose of granting relief by the Tribunal, the learned counsel places reliance on the Supreme Court decision given in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Anbari & Ors., reported in 2000 ACJ 469.