TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. TIANARO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. V. Devnath, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. I. Apok Pongner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

(2.) The main ground taken by the present appeal amongst others is that, the owner of the vehicle did not effectively contest the case on merits and as such, the learned tribunal should have granted permission to the appellant/Insurer under Ss. 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, to contest the case of merits, but the same benefit was denied.

(3.) Another ground taken by the appellant is that the insurance policy exhibited by the claimant in the instant claim case as exhibit P3 is false and fabricated, as it was not issued by the appellant, and the learned tribunal had over-looked this legal aspect of the matter. It is stated by the appellant that they have filed an FIR against the false and fake Insurance Policy relied upon by the claimant. The appellant filed the FIR against the said fake Insurance Policy and also issued an intimation letter to the owner of the vehicle about the said false fabricated Insurances Policy and exhibited the said FIR as exhibit D2, but the learned tribunal below did not deal with this important aspect seriously, and passed the Impugned Judgment award dt. 27/8/2019. Learned counsel Mr. V. Devnath also submits that the impugned Judgment and award has been passed erroneously, and therefore, the same is to be set aside and quashed.