UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. PRITO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the parties submit that there is one another appeal being FAO No.372 of 2006 which arises out of the same accident. With the consent of the parties, the said appeal has been called for and is being disposed of with the present cases.

(2.) ALL the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the same accident and same issues are involved in these aforesaid appeals.

(3.) THE main contention raised by Sh.Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that during the course of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, the Insurance Company moved application(s) for amendment of the written statement. Initially the Insurance Company had admitted the fact that the vehicle was owned by Vijay Kumar. However, later it filed application(s) for the amendment stating therein that during the course of the proceedings, it came to know that the vehicle in question had been sold by Vijay Kumar firstly to Purshotam Chand and then to Ramesh Kumar. The plea of the Insurance Company was that the insurance cover had been obtained fraudulently without the Insurance Company being informed about the change of ownership. These applications for amendment were rejected by the learned Tribunal which held that it had looked into the books of the RLA and the vehicle was stated to be sold by Ramesh Kumar on 31.5.2005 after the accident and he found no ground to allow the amendment.