NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. JAGDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by New India Assurance Company challenging the award dated 27.4.1987 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 23,000 for the injury suffered by the claimant-respondent in a motor vehicular accident, which had taken place on 14.8.1986 at Zirakpur Chowk near Aero Drum in the area of Police Station Sohana, District Ropar. The claimant-respondent has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30 %. A meagre sum of Rs. 5,000 for care and carriage charges have been awarded, Rs. 3,000 as future expenditure on account of the treatment, which was still being carried on. For pain and sufferings, again Rs. 5,000 has been assessed and whereas, for permanent disability of 30% Rs. 5,000 has been granted. The claimant-respondent has also been given interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing the petition till its realization.

(2.) WHEN the appeal came up for consideration, Mr. Neeraj Khanna, learned Advocate Counsel for the appellant-Company has argued that there is no insurance cover on record and the Tribunal has erroneously held that the insurance has not been denied by the appellant-Insurance Company. On that basis the Tribunal has considered the vehicle as insured and has held the appellant-Insurance Company as liable severally and jointly with the owner and driver.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the appellant-Insurance Company cannot dispute either the factum of accident or the factum of insurance of the offending truck. The instant appeal is pending since 1987 and recovery has been stayed since then. There is no application filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for bringing on record any other document showing that the insurance policy had expired before the date of the accident. Therefore, at this stage, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be permitted to dispute the finding with regard to the factum of accident or the fact that the offending truck was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The Tribunal cannot be considered to be wrong when on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, it has been concluded in para No. 25 as under: