FAO No.2724 of 2014 (O&M) [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2724 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 04, 2014 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd...Appellant Versus Smt.Krishna and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant.
*** Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
CM-9127-CII-2014 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal.
Heard.
In view of the grounds mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
FAO-2724-2014 The present appeal has been filed by M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd challenging the award dated 04.01.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, primarily on the following two grounds:- (I) that Dharam Pal, Driver, was involved in multiple accidental cases and, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the said driver; Sharma Seema 2014.08.07 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2724 of 2014 (O&M) [2].(ii) that the vehicle No.HR-19A-8516 was not involved in the accident causing death of Makhan Singh.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel submits that during inquiry/trial, it had been brought on record that the respondent/driver, Dharam Pal, was involved in as many as nine more accidental cases and, as such, his false involvement in this case cannot be ruled out.
He further submits that the driver has not appeared as a witness before the learned Tribunal and, as such, presumption should be raised against him.
It was also contended that Ved Parkash, the owner of the vehicle, though appeared in the witness-box yet his deposition would not carry any weight since the same was contrary to the contents of his reply presented before the learned Tribunal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and with his able assistance gone through the material available on record.
A specific query was put to the learned counsel to show any term and condition of the policy to the effect that the Insurance Company would not indemnify the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident if his driver is involved in so many accidental cases.
Learned counsel fairly conceded that there was no such term and condition in the policy whereby Ved Parkash, the owner of vehicle No.HR-19A-8516, was insured.
Yet another question was put to the learned counsel for the appellant that on what basis he was arguing that vehicle No.HR-19A-8516 was not involved in the accident as alleged by the respondent/claimants then he could not answer to the said query.
Sharma Seema 2014.08.07 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2724 of 2014 (O&M) [3].Ved Parkash, owner of the vehicle, had appeared in the witness box and he admitted the fact that Dharam Pal was the driver of vehicle No.HR-19A-8516 at the time of accident.
It is also the admitted fact that the appellant is the insurer of the owner of vehicle No.HR-19A-8516.
On the grounds submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the claim of the claimants cannot be rejected.
The learned trial court has given sound reasons to hold that it was Dharam Pal who was driving vehicle No.HR-19A-8516 at the time of accident.
On the date of occurrence, the matter was reported to the police, the offending vehicle was intercepted by the Investigating Agency, and after investigation, charge-sheet was also presented for the prosecution of Dharam Pal and he is still facing the trial.
In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court in the well-reasoned award of the learned Tribunal is made out.
Dismissed.
August 04, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge Sharma Seema 2014.08.07 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh