UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. DRAUPADI BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 11Q -D of the Motor Vehicles Act in which the United India Insurance Company has challenged its liability to pay the compensation awarded.

(2.) ONE Kasinath Behera of Kalupada, P.S. Purusottampur died in a motor accident on 30 -3 -1982 near village Palia, Chatrapur on the National High Way No. 5. His widow and mother claimed compensation before the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Berhampur against the owner and the driver who caused the accident. Initially the name of the Insurance Company was not disclosed in the application filed under Section 110 -A of the Act. It was merely against column No. 16 which is the relevant place mentioning the same that the address of the Insurance Company will be disclosed after the appearance of the owner in the case. The owner, however, did not appear to contest the claim of the claimants. An application was filed by the claimants praying to amend the application by impleading M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. represented by the Divisional Manager, Cuttack as Opp. party No. 3 which was allowed by the trial court. It is the Insurance Company who alone filed a written statement denying its liability and contested the case. The learned Claims Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 27,000/ - in favour of the two claimants apportioning the same between them and also allowed interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the realisation of the amount.

(3.) MR . Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant laid stress on the fact that the original application, the copy of which was served on the Insurance Company did not contain the name of the Insurance Company far less the policy number and other details from which appellant company could trace out as to whether the vehicle in question was insured with them. He also invited my attention to the written statement where a specific plea has been taken that the claimants should be put to strict proof that the vehicle was validly insured with the appellant company and that the policy was subsisting on the date of accident. The application dated 13 -12 -1983 sworn on 29 -12 -1983 applying for impletion of the appellant Insurance Company no doubt gave a policy number different from the one now stated in the memo of appeal by the appellant, but nothing was produced in the trial court in order to prove that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant company. As a matter of fact, repeated grievances have been made before the Tribunal by the appellant to direct the claimants to furnish the details of the policy to trace out as to whether the vehicle was insured with the appellant company. On 19 -7 -1984, when the witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants and their evidence was closed, an application was filed by the appellant company praying for a direction to the claimants to supply the insurance particulars which prayer was allowed and the order -sheet shows that the insurance policy number was supplied. But thereafter, the court adjourned the matter to 27 -7 -1984 requiring the insurance company to adduce evidence if they so choose within the short time granted. As argued by Mr. Sinha, it was not possible for the insurance company to trace out the necessary details for establishing that the vehicle was not at all insured with the appellant company. The court, however, after quantifying the compensation payable to the claimants, on a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question has saddled the liability of paying compensation on the appellant insurance company, apparently without recording a finding as to whether the vehicle was insured with the appellant company.