NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. CHET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of the same accident that was alleged to have involved a Tata sumo bearing registration No.HR-08-B- 5459. The appeal by the Insurance Company in FAO No.428 of 2004 is on the issue of liability and the involvement of the vehicle, while the appeal in FAO No.278 of 2004 is for enhancement of claim for compensation which was assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 7,54,534/- with interest at 9% per annum.

(2.) THIS case was heard by me and reserved for judgment on 08.09.2010. While making the judgment ready, I found that there was still some missing links relating to the alleged involvement of the vehicle and I had reopened the case suo moto and passed an order on 23.09.2010, directing notice be sent to the driver, who was said to have involved the vehicle in the accident. The claimant as well as the hospital authority of Government Hospital, Churu produced OP admission register relating to the alleged admission of the claimant soon after the accident on the intervening night between 17/18 of September, 1999.

(3.) THE driver himself had a lot to explain because he had originally given evidence in Court to the effect that no accident had taken place. I thought it necessary to summon the driver only after I found from the records that the owner of the vehicle had made nondamage claim from the Insurance Company for its involvement in an accident. Before the Tribunal, he was completely denying that his vehicle was ever involved in any accident. Evidently, he was trying to conceal the fact and the Insurance Company was also interested in supporting such a defence for it meant complete exclusion of liability for the insurer. On being recalled in Court, he admitted that the vehicle was involved in an accident on the intervening night between 17/18.09.1999 when a support rod (axle) of the truck broke and the vehicle had capsized. The vehicle, according to him, remained there till 5 PM the next day. He admitted that there were 4 to 5 persons travelling along with him in the vehicle, but he did not know whether anyone was injured in the accident and whether any person had to be taken to the hospital. He also admitted that the passengers in the car were persons, who had purchased some goods at Rajasthan and they had transported the goods in other trucks which were going ahead of the car. He also stated that he did not inform the Insurance Company about the accident but the owner had informed the accident to the Insurance Company. He admitted that he had filed a written statement before the Tribunal in response to the claim petition and it was specifically confronted to him that he had denied the accident itself but he had no explanation to give except to state that his signature had been taken on the statement and he did not know what the statement contained. I find the denial of accident in the written statement to be false, having regard to the admission made by him now before me that his vehicle had been involved in the accident at the relevant time.