ISHWAR LAL CHAUDHARI Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of two persons, Ishwar Lal Chaudhary and Sajjan Singh (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in MAC Petition No. 16-NL/2 of 90/1989 who claim to be the owners of vehicle No. CHN-7437 (motor cycle) which hit deceased Sulemaa on 17.4.1989 when he was going on a bi-cycle on Nalagarh Swarghat road at about 7a.m. Following five issues were framed for trial by the learned Tribunal:

(2.) THE learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh vide its judgment dated 11.10.1993 passed in the aforesaid clam petition, which is under challenge in this appeal, passed an award of Rs. 65,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in this appeal. (Claimant-respondent No. 4 Sairan has since died). Even though the Tribunal passed the award in favour of the aforesaid claimants, it absolved the Insurance Company, respondent No. 1 herein (respondent No. 4 in the claim petition) of its liability to pay the award amount and correspondingly, therefore, fastened the liability to pay the award amount, jointly and severally upon the appellants, who were respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the claim petition. In coming to the conclusion that the insurer was not liable to pay the award amount and that the appellants were liable to pay the same, jointly and severally, the learned Tribunal in paras 15 and 16 of the judgment, while dealing with Issue Nos. 3 and 4 apparently placed his reliance upon the fact that the contract of insurance was subsisting between respondent No. 2 Arvind Kumar and respondent No. 1 National Insurance Company and since the ownership of the vehicle had been transferred before the date of Accident in favour of the appellants, the said contract of insurance between respondent Nos. 1 and 1 could not be given effect to, insofar as the liability of the Insurance Company qua satisfying the award is concerned. Paras 15 and 16 of the impugned judgment being apposite are reproduced hereunder for our ready reference. These read thus:

(3.) ON the record of the Tribunal at page 62 is the copy of Insurance Policy No. 403002/6202688/89 with respect to the same vehicle in which the effective date of commencement of insurance has been mentioned as "19.4.1989" and the date of expiry of this insurance is 18.4.1990. At the bottom of Ex. R-3 two important facts are noticeable which are columnized and these are as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_22_TLHPH0_20052.htm</FRM> As per Ex. R-3 effective date of commencement of the insurance is 19.4.1989 whereas, as per Ex. R-4 this date is 14.4.1989. The difference is very, very material because the Accident took place on 17.4.1989. If Ex. R-4 is a valid document and through it an insurance has validly been brought about and effected, then the vehicle shall be deemed to have been insured on 14.4.1989, i.e., before the date of the Accident, but if Ex. R-4 is not a valid document and Ex. R-3 alone is a valid document then the vehicle, as on the date of Accident surely has to be considered as not being insured. Thus the aforesaid two documents are irreconcilable, with respect to the effective date of commencement of the insurance and unfortunately, very, very unfortunately none of the parties in the Tribunal tried to bring about any conciliation about these two conflicting dates viz., as to why did Ex. R-4 mention a different date of commencement of the insurance as compared to Ex. R-3.