PRECTO PIPE CO. Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals directed against the order of learner Single Judge, dated August 3, 1983. On October 23, 1974, an accident took place between a motor cycle and a truck at Chowk Gowal Mandi, Amritsar. The driver of motor cycle named Havaldar Maluk Singh as well as its pillion rider named Subedar Milkha Singh were seriously injured. Both these persons filed Claim petitions before the Claim: Tribuanl. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as compensation to Havalda Maluk Singh and Rs. 18,000/- to Subedar Milkha Singh. The Tribunal further found the it was the owner of the truck who was liable to pay these amounts and the Insurance Company was not liable for the same.

(2.) THE owner of the truck namely Precto Pipe Company, G.T. Road, Amritsar consequently filed two First Appeals in this Court bearing Nos. 314 and 315 of 1977. In both these appeals question was as to whether the liability was to be enforced on the Insurance Company or on Precto Pipe Company, the appellant. The appeals were disposed by a common judgment by the learned Single Judge on August 8, 1987. Both the appeals were dismissed. It was held that Insurance Company was not liable in any manner to pay the compensation awarded to the Claimants.

(3.) THE sole question involved in these appeals is as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation awarded to the Claimants or not. It was not in dispute that truck was purchased by Precto Pipe Company, the appellant on June 17, 1974. The policy of insurance in respect of the truck in the name of pervious owner Chamel Singh was to expire on January 24, 1975. The Claims Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge have categorically recorded finding of fact that no transfer was effected in the insurance policy with respect to the ownership of the truck. The appellant took no steps to get his same substituted in place of previous owner of the truck Chamel Singh, The appellant alied on two documents namely Ex. R.2 and Ex. R.4 in order to establish that letters were written to the respondent--Insurance Company seeking transfer of policy of insurance, he Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge have disbelieved the said documents and have held that they are rr genuine documents. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of Act recorded bv ie Claims Tribunal and learned Single Judge as well. Both the letters Ex. R.2 and Ex. R.4 were sent under certificates of posting. No presumption of receipt of be said letters would be assumed in favour of the appellants. Even otherwise the rcumstances clearly show that these documents have been subsequently manufactured or the purpose of making claim against the Insurance Company. In the circumstances, we find nothing wrong in the finding recorded by the Claims tribunal and learned Single Judge, Appeals are consequently dismissed. The parties are rected to bear their own costs.