NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SAIDA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 3rd December, 2003 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur, in connection with Compensation Case No. 15 of 1993 whereby the Insurance Company has been directed to satisfy the awarded amount with interest. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 27th November, 1992 an accident took place near Sakchi, Gurdwara Gate at Kali Mati Road, P.S. Sakchi (Sighbhum.). It is disclosed in the Fardbeyan that truck bearing registration No. BRT 4792 being driven rashly and negligently caused dash to the deceased Mian Noor Hussain who was returning to his residence on his Moped bearing registration No. BPX 5704 from Makdumpur. The Tribunal after adjudication directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,25,000 with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of final payment to the claimants and, hence, this appeal.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the accident took place on 27th November, 1992 at about 12.30 p.m. The owner of the vehicle who was opposite party No. 1 in the Court below very cleverly approached the office of the appellant at about 3.30 p.m. and got the offending vehicle insured for three months. The owner of the offending vehicle had committed fraud knowing full well that the vehicle belonging to him had caused accident resulting in death of a person and he had hurriedly rushed to the appellant and obtained the said insurance policy. Affidavit sworn by the owner of the offending vehicle has been marked Ext. E and the letter written by him has been marked as Ext. D. These two documents clearly indicate as to how and in what circumstances the owner of the vehicle had obtained policy in order to pass on the responsibility on the shoulder of the appellant. Since there was no contract between the insurer and the insured at the time of the occurrence i.e., at 12.30 p.m. on 27th November, 1992, the insurer of the offending vehicle has wrongly been fastened with the liability. The learned Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration Exts. D and E which are the documents written by the owner of the vehicle. In the circumstances aforesaid, the owner of the vehicle ought to have been directed to pay compensation amount and, therefore, the impugned judgment to this extent is liable to be set aside.

(3.) None appears on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, whereas Counsel for the claimants is present and submits that till date, they have not received single coin and they could not be debarred from getting the fruits of the judgment, if the litigation continues between the insurer and the insured.