UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. AMRITA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh for the appellant, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the owner-respondent No. 4 are present. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.11.2011/7.2.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V-cum- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Buxar, in Claim Case No. 8 of 2003, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the case of the claimant has directed the insurance company to make -payment of the compensation amount.

(2.) The only issue that has been raised by the appellant insurance company in this appeal is that even while there was no evidence to demonstrate that the vehicle was insured except the police investigation report and even when the owner of the vehicle did not choose to appear to contest the claim, the tribunal simply relying upon the statement made by the claimant that the offending vehicle was insured and bore insurance policy No. 652419-05-31-2002 which information was derived from the case diary and was contested by the insurance company to submit that no insurance policy by the said number had been issued from the company and that the policies being issued from the company started with separate digits, the tribunal while dismissing the contentions of the insurance company, inter alia, on grounds of absence of authentic proof, has directed them to make payment of the compensation amount and thus this appeal. This appeal raises no other issue except that the policy was never issued by the appellant company. Upon notice being served, the owner has appeared through counsel, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh who was directed by this Court vide order dated 7.5.2013 to produce the insurance paper but despite indulgence being granted to him on 16.5.2013, no insurance paper was produced by him rather a statement was made that it had got lost. Neither the name of the insurance company through which the vehicle was insured nor the number of the policy has been brought on record by the owner-respondent No. 4. Whatsoever confusion that was prevailing when the matter was being contested before the tribunal stands removed upon appearance of the owner before this Court and his failure to produce any evidence to demonstrate that the vehicle was insured which is sufficient to draw adverse inference against him. It is but obvious that if the offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident, the insurance company cannot be saddled with any liability. The failure of the owner-respondent No. 4 to give any information to this Court and to demonstrate that the vehicle was insured, has left no other option to this Court than to modify the award shifting the liability of payment of compensation on the respondent No. 4 i.e. the owner. Even today, before this Court proceeded to pass the final order, on query Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh appearing for the respondent No. 4 reiterated his earlier submission regarding the paper having been lost and that he has no details relatable to the policy in question. The position being such, the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner in absence of any evidence to demonstrate that the offending vehicle was insured.

(3.) In the circumstances, the judgment and award impugned stands modified to the extent that now it is the respondent No. 4 i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle who is to make payment of the compensation amount as determined by the tribunal in terms of the judgment and award impugned together with interest and within the period stipulated thereunder. This appeal is allowed.