ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. METHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.5.1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balotra (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,83,900 in favour of the respondents -claimants (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') and against respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and the insurance company.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the award impugned, appellant insurance company, the insurer has filed this appeal on two grounds; first the accident in question took place on 16.8.1988 and cover note was obtained by the respondent No. 11, the owner of the vehicle by concealing material fact that the bus No. 4665 met with an accident prior to the obtaining of the cover note. The second ground on which the present appeal is filed by the appellant is regarding limits of liability. According to Section 95(2)(b)(i) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as then it was applicable statutory liability of insurance company was Rs. 50,000. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the vehicle in which the passengers were carried for hire and reward met with an accident.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that though the cover note is dated 12.8.1988 but in fact it was obtained on 16.8.1988 after the happening of the accident. Cover note is said to be valid from 12.8.1988 to 11.8.1989 covering third party risk. It is further contended that on behalf of the appellant, DW 3 Ramswaroop Pareek, Investigator was examined by the Claims Tribunal. He stated that the cover note Exh. 44 was issued on 12.8.1988 and the accident took place on 16.8.1988 and in between 12.8.1988 and 16.8.1988, no other cover note was issued. He proved the report as Exh. 1 prepared by him. He stated that agent of insurance company deposited the premium amount of the insurance which he collected on 16.8.1988 and on the basis of the cover note, policy Exh. A -2 was issued showing the covering of risk for the period from 12.8.1988 to 11.8.1989. It was alleged that the agent of the insurance company was also the employee of the insured.