BHAIRON AND ORS. Vs. NANDRAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals in a case of accident by a tractor in which Nandram was injured. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be called as the 'Tribunal') has awarded compensation of Rs. 38,000/ -against the owner Bheru and Saiduram and the driver Manya s/o Sukha. In addition to the above, this award was also made against the New India Assurance Company Limited, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur.

(2.) THE New India Assurance Company has filed appeal No. 42/80 and Bhairon s/o Hira, Sedu Ram s/o Hukma and Mania s/o Sukha have filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 56/80. Since both the appeals are against the same Award of the Tribunal they were heard together and are being decided by one common judgment.

(3.) RECORD has been called in this case. I have perused the policy (Ex. A. 1). After perusal I find that it is a policy for an insured. It is a printed paper where assurance company has itself got printed true copy. There is absolutely nothing to show authentication of a true copy by any authority whatsoever. Apart from that, most strange factors of this document (Ex. A. 1) is that it purports to policy as the caption is different 'Motor Policy' but all the terms and conditions of the policy are missing from it. In one of the column it is written that 'Driver:? Any of the following: Presumably the condition contemplated about the driver were sought to be reproduced, in this column. But all these conditions are missing even though so called, true copy purports to be a present one. After a blank space a provision is mentioned, on which Shri Bandhu wants to rely. Proviso is to be to some conditions or a provision to which it can be exception and is caved out as an explanation. If terms and conditions or provisions are missing then a proviso would be without head and heart and lungs. In other words, a proviso can never be intelligible without communicating what are the conditions of the policy to which this proviso would apply. It is a very strange state of affiairs that assurance company would take premiums from the owner of the vehicles, and avoid payments when the accidents are caused. It would then rush to the Courts to defend them. Even then they would defend negligently and fail to produce assurance policy or its true copy, from which the condition of the insurance can be inferred or found out. The fact that this is a public company and that too a nationalised company, spending public money in such litigations, by taking such defences negligently, should be a matter of serious and great concern to all those who are concerned with proper utilisation of the public funds.