ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. YASHWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner insurance company is respondent No. 3 in the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 claimant Yashwant Singh which is pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimla. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the claim petition being owner and driver of the vehicle in question. One Rameshwar Singh, son of Kanwar Singh, who is respondent No. 4 in the claim petition, is another owner of the vehicle, but inadvertently he has not been impleaded as party respondent in this revision petition. This defect was not pointed out at the time of hearing of the revision petition. However, it is not material as owner Yashwant Singh and driver Kanwar Singh are impleaded as respondents in the revision petition.

(2.) The petitioner insurance company is aggrieved by the later part of the order dated 11.4.2001 whereby its evidence was closed and the statement of K.S. Raina, its Assistant Administrative Officer, who was present with a true copy of the insurance policy was not recorded on the ground that it was intended to be produced at a belated stage having been not filed at the time of or after the settlement of issues and without showing any good cause for the non-production thereof as envisaged under rule 2 of Order 13, Civil Procedure Code. The notice issued under Order 12, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code to the learned counsel appearing for the owners and driver of the vehicle for production of original driving licence and insurance policy was also rejected as of no consequence on the ground that it is for the petitioner insurance company to lead evidence if it wants to wriggle out of the contract of insurance.

(3.) This court has heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.