Patna - 800 003. (Opp. Party No. - 2 in the Claim Case) …… v. 1. Rambha Devi wife of Late Khantar Mandal, resident of Village - Ajhokupa
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.180 of 2009 ====================================================== Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Patna Regional Office, which is at present situated at Pirmuhani More, P.O. & P.S. - Kadam Kuan, District : Patna - 800 003. (Opp. Party No. - 2 in the Claim Case) ………Appellant Versus 1. Rambha Devi wife of Late Khantar Mandal, resident of Village - Ajhokupa (Navtolia), P.S. Rupaili, District - Purnia. (Claimant of the Claim Case) ….………..Respondent - 1st Set 2. Jai Chand Jaiswal son of Ramsagar Bhagat, resident of Village - Khanpur Laxmipur, P.S. Pirpanti, District - Bhagalpur. (Owner of Tractor No. BR- 10 E - 4434). (Opp. Party No. - 1 in the Claim Case) …………Respondent - 2nd Set ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.179 of 2009 ====================================================== Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Patna Regional Office, which is at present situated at Pirmuhani More, P.O. & P.S. - Kadam Kuan, District : Patna - 800 003. (Opp. Party No. - 2 in the Claim Case) ………Appellant Versus 1. Shobha Devi wife of Late Manoj Sah, resident of Village - Ajhokupa (Navtolia), P.S. Rupaili, District - Purnia. (Claimant of the Claim Case) ….………..Respondent - 1st Set 2. Jai Chand Jaiswal son of Ramsagar Bhagat, resident of Village - Khanpur Laxmipur, P.S. Pirpanti, District - Bhagalpur. (Owner of Tractor No. BR- 10 E - 4434). (Opp. Party No. - 1 in the Claim Case) …………Respondent - 2nd Set ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Appeal No.181 of 2009 ====================================================== Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Patna Regional Office, which is at present situated at Pirmuhani More, P.O. & P.S. - Kadam Kuan, District : Patna - 800 003. (Opp. Party No. - 2 in the Claim Case) Versus 1. Shyama Devi wife of Late Gilo Mandal, resident of Village - Ajhokupa (Navtolia), P.S. Rupauli, District - Purnia. (Claimant of the Claim Case) ….………..Respondent - 1st Set ………Appellant
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court MA No.180 of 2009 (18) dt.02-04-2013 2
Legal Reasoning
2. Jai Chand Jaiswal son of Ramsagar Bhagat, resident of Village - Khanpur Laxmipur, P.S. Pirpanti, District - Bhagalpur. (Owner of Tractor No. BR- 10 E - 4434). (Opp. Party No. - 1 in the Claim Case) …………Respondent - 2nd Set ====================================================== Appearance : (In all the appeals) For the Appellant : Mr. Rajen Sahay, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Advocate : Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL ORDER 18 02-04-2013 Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 1. All these three appeals are arising out of composite judgment and award dated 08th November, 2008 passed in Claim Case Nos. 12, 13 & 104 all of 2007 by 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Naugachia and the claimants have been awarded respectively sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, 2,54,000/- and 2,97,500/- as compensation as per merit of each case. 2. During the appeal one limited question arose for determination whether the vehicle in question, i.e., “BR - 10E - 4434” was insured or not. 3. On going through the insurance papers produced before the court below by the claimants (Exhibit - 3) bears “Vehicle No. – BR - 10D - 4434”. Patna High Court MA No.180 of 2009 (18) dt.02-04-2013 3 4. In view of such difference of two letters „D‟ & „E‟ vide order dated 28.02.2013, the owner of the vehicle was directed to produce the original insurance papers, failing which it had to be taken as admission that the vehicle in question bearing “Registration No. – BR – 10E -4434” was not at all insured, but in spite of taking another adjournment on 15.03.2013 nothing could be done regarding the same. 5. Undisputedly, the owner of the vehicle, i.e., the respondent no. 2 in all these three appeals appeared before the Claim Tribunal and filed written statement without any chit of paper and also subsequently left to contest. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 tried his level best by submitting that the matter may be remanded to the Claim Tribunal for fresh determination since no separate issue was framed as regard to insurance of the vehicle, but this submission is not acceptable in face of the Issue No. VI framed by the Claim Tribunal that “whether claimants are entitled to get compensation? If so from whom and from what extent?” and while deciding this issue on arriving on the finding that Patna High Court MA No.180 of 2009 (18) dt.02-04-2013 4 the vehicle in question, i.e., “BR - 10E - 4434” was insured under “Policy No. 332400 - 2007-1809”, but this finding appears contrary to Exhibit – 3, wherein, the vehicle number is “BR - 10D - 4434”. 7. It is equally true that the insurer-appellant also did not took any pain to produce any original paper of insurance to set the controversy at rest before the Tribunal. But in face of the above and in absence of any paper produced by the owner of the vehicle in spite of direction and adjournment, there is no option left, but to hold that vehicle in question appears not covered under insurance, hence, the liability to pay the compensation as awarded is of the owner of vehicle, i.e., respondent no. 2. It is also pointed out that the claimants have not been paid even single penny and are deprived of interim compensation also. Hence the statutory amount deposited is to be transmitted to the Claim Tribunal Below for immediate payment to the claimants, in addition to what the owner or insurer- appellant, as the case may be, is to pay them. 8. However, to meet further interest of justice, the owner of the vehicle may have an option to make payment of the amount awarded with interest till date within Patna High Court MA No.180 of 2009 (18) dt.02-04-2013 5 a period of two months or produce the original insurance papers, if at all; the vehicle in question was insured. On such production of the papers, subject to verification, the liability may again be shifted upon the insurer, who will complete all the formalities as regard to verification on insurance within a fortnight of such production and make payment, if liable, within a period of one month thereafter. It is further made clear in view of special circumstances of this case that in case the owner failed to pay the compensation or produce the insurance papers within stipulated period, the amount of compensation so awarded may be doubled and the rate of interest shall be compound in place of simple. 9. With the above observations and directions
Decision
made above, all these three appeals stands disposed of. Praveen-II/- A.F.R. (Akhilesh Chandra, J)