RAMESH Vs. CHOTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the award dated July 30, 1984 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jaipur in claim case No. 175 of 1977.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Chotu filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jaipur for an amount of Rs. 18,500/ - against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 alleging therein that while crossing the road near Collect orate in Bani Park, Jaipur on November 19, 1975, he was hit by scooter No. RRN 9094, which was driven by the appellant. It was also stated in the petition that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were the owners of the said scooter, which was insured with the respondent No. 5, the Oriental Fire and General Ins. Co. The claimant sustained serious injuries including fracture in the leg as alleged by him. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - against the appellant alone who was -driving the scooter at the time when the accident took place.

(3.) MR . S.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, the insurance company, contends that insurance company has come with clean hands and produced the policy to which a reference was made by the claimant. The policy has been produced in the trial court, which shows that the scooter was covered from April 7,1976 to April 6, 1977. Since the accident took place on November 19, 1975, evidently the insurance company cannot be held liable for compensation regarding any award, which may be passed on account of accident which arose earlier than the policy was issued. His further contention is that no such plea was raised in the trial court as is now raised on behalf of the appellant against the insurance company of not disclosing any facts as alleged by the appellant during the course of arguments. It is contended that a vehicle can be insured anywhere in India and it becomes impossible for the insurance company to find out on its own whether a particular vehicle is insured with it on a particular date. It is further contended that even if such pleas were taken in the trial court, efforts might have been made to see whether the scooter was insured with the insurance company on the relevant date, but since no such point was raised, now at the appellate stage the Insurance company cannot be held guilty to have suppressed any facts, which it was not called upon to have stated before the Tribunal.