SIRI CHAND YADAV Vs. BHAGWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the owner of the truck challenging award dated 28.4.1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short, 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 25 of 1988, whereby the liability of the Insurance Company has been held to be limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per the policy for the reason that the insured/appellant did not pay any extra premium for coverage of unlimited third party risk.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Ved Parkash died in an accident, while going on his bicycle, in the night intervening 27th/28th May, 1988, being hit by a truck owned by the appellant. The deceased, who was 41 years of age, was working as Teacher in Nagar Nigam Prathmic Bal Vidhyala, Dhanse, New Delhi and was getting salary of Rs. 2481/- per month. As against the claim of Rs. 15,00,000/- made by the claimants, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,68,800/- which was directed to be apportioned amongst the claimants, i.e., his widow, three minor sons and a minor daughter. The plea of the Insurance Company was accepted to the extent that its liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per the terms of the policy as the owner of the vehicle had not paid any extra premium for coverage of unlimited risk.

(3.) Shri O.P. Goel, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that copy of the policy, placed on record, is a typed certified true copy and the original thereof not having been placed on record, the same could not be relied upon to defeat the claim of the appellant to plead that the liability of the Insurance Company in the present case was unlimited. The onus to prove the same was on the Insurance Company and having failed to adduce any evidence to that extent, adverse view should be taken against the Insurance Company. He further submitted that even if a document has been exhibited, the Court can still refuse to read the same in evidence. He relied upon Krishan Lal and Ors. v. Mohd. Din and Ors. 1993 ACJ 907 (Delhi) Old Act and Om Wati and Ors. v. Mohd. Din and Ors. (2001-2) P.L.R. 21 (Delhi) (DB).