Mr.D.K.Parjapati Advocate for Vs. Smt.Roshani and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1143168
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-06-2014
AppellantMr.D.K.Parjapati Advocate for
RespondentSmt.Roshani and Others
Excerpt:
fao no.6864 of 2010 [1].in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh fao no.6864 of 2010(o&m) date of decision: may 06, 2014 rajender singh and another ..appellants versus smt.roshani and others ..respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice harinder singh sidhu present: mr.c.r.ohla, advocate, for the appellants. mr.d.k.parjapati, advocate for mr.r.s.madan, advocate for respondent – insurance company. *** harinder singh sidhu, j.(oral) this appeal has been filed against the award dated 28.8.2010 passed by motor accident claims tribunal, fatehabad (for short `the tribunal').the appellants are the driver and owner of jeep bearing no.hr-22d-4874 involved in this accident. they have challenged the finding of the tribunal holding them liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants – respondents no.1 to 4, who are legal representatives of deceased hans raj. the facts as stated in the claim petition, briefly, are that on 17.3.2007 at about 6.45 pm, deceased hans raj along with his brother balwant and nephew satyam was proceeding to his village from hisar on motorcycle no.hr-20f-8160. when they reached in the area of village mochiwala, the jeep in question being driven by rajender singh – appellant no.1 came from the side of village jandli and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, hans raj fell down and suffered multiple injuries, and ultimately succumbed to the same. fir no.83 dated 17.3.2007 under sections 304-a, etc.ipc was fao no.6864 of 2010 [2].registered in police station bhuna against appellant no.1. respondents no.1 to 4 being the widow and minor children of the deceased filed claim petition under section 166 of the motor vehicles act, 1988. after analysis of the evidence led before it, the tribunal concluded that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by appellant no.1. further based on the evidence, the tribunal held that claimants are entitled to compensation of rs.3,91,000/- along with interest. issue no.4 regarding the driving of the jeep in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy was decided against the appellants on the ground that at the time of the accident, the jeep was not covered with a valid and effective insurance policy. accordingly, the appellants were held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. to prove that the jeep was having a valid insurance policy, the appellants had relied upon cover note mark-j issued on 16.3.2007 at about 11.10 am, as per which the jeep bearing reg.no.hr-22d-4874 was insured. to the contrary, the insurance company had proved on record the insurance policy (exhibit r-8).which depicts that the jeep was insured w.e.f.18.3.2007 (6.30 pm) till 17.3.2008 (midnight) and the said policy was issued on 22.3.2007. the insurance company had also placed on record a carbon copy of the motor cover note book no.128686, containing 25 cover notes i.e.sl no.34410751 to 34410775. cover note no.34410771 relates to the jeep, which was issued on 17.3.2007 and as per this document, the vehicle was insured for the period w.e.f.18.3.2007 (6.30 pm) till 17.3.2008 (midnight).on the basis of this evidence, the tribunal concluded that the insurance cover mark-j was neither an exhibited document, nor has been proved by any witness and it was further fao no.6864 of 2010 [3].observed that this document was contrary to the documents produced by the company and is a fabricated one. accordingly, since the jeep was not proved to be covered under the insurance policy at the time of accident, respondent – insurance company was absolved of its liability to pay the compensation and this liability was fastened upon the appellants. at the time of arguments before this court, learned counsel for the appellants has stressed that the cover note mark-j is a valid and authentic document, which proves that the jeep was fully insured at the time of the accident on 17.3.2007. it is contended that the cover note mark-j was issued on 16.3.2007 at about 11.10 am and that the tribunal has erred in not relying on this document and terming it a fabricated document. having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, including the documents relied upon by the parties (exhibits r-8, r-9 and mark-j).this court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned award. exhibit r-9 is carbon copy of the motor cover note book no.128686, which contains cover notes no.34410751 to 34410775, i.e.25 cover notes, which have been issued as under:- cover note no.date of issue insurance period 34410751 15-2-2007 18.2.2007 to 17.2.2008 xxx xxx xxx 34410769 17.3.2007 19.3.2007 to 18.3.2008 34410770 17.3.2007 18.3.2007 to 17.3.2008 34410771 17.3.2007 18.3.2007 to 17.3.2008 34410772 17.3.2007 19.3.2007 to 18.3.2008 34410773 17.3.2007 19.3.2007 to 18.3.2008 34410774 20.3.2007 21.3.2007 to 20.3.2008 34410775 20.3.2007 21.3.2007 to 20.3.2008 the record shows that the firs.cover note was issued on 15.2.2007 fao no.6864 of 2010 [4].and the last cover note of the book was issued on 20.3.2007. all the cover-notes have been duly filled in seriatim date-wise and with time mentioned in each. this leaves no room to doubt the authenticity of the motor cover note book. the cover note no.34410771 relating to the jeep was issued on 17.3.2007, vide which the vehicle was insured for the period w.e.f.18.3.2007 till midnight of 17.3.2008. corresponding to this cover note, insurance policy (exhibit r-8) was also issued insuring the offending jeep for the same period, as mentioned in the cover note. the insurance company has also led evidence before the tribunal to the effect that the it moved a complaint (exhibit r-2) before the superintendent of police for initiating criminal proceedings against appellant no.2 and against its agent sanjay and one manav jain for fabricating the insurance cover note. in the light of the above discussion, the finding of the tribunal that the jeep was not insured at the time of accident, is upheld and thus, the appellants are liable to make payment of compensation. accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. may 06, 2014 ( harinder singh sidhu ) `gian' judge kumar gianender 2014.05.19 10:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court
Judgment:

FAO No.6864 of 2010 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6864 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 06, 2014 Rajender Singh and another ..Appellants Versus Smt.Roshani and others ..Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr.C.R.Ohla, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr.D.K.Parjapati, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Madan, Advocate for respondent – Insurance Company.

*** HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.(ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the Award dated 28.8.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (for short `the Tribunal').The appellants are the driver and owner of Jeep bearing No.HR-22D-4874 involved in this accident.

They have challenged the finding of the Tribunal holding them liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants – respondents No.1 to 4, who are legal representatives of deceased Hans Raj.

The facts as stated in the claim petition, briefly, are that on 17.3.2007 at about 6.45 pm, deceased Hans Raj along with his brother Balwant and nephew Satyam was proceeding to his village from Hisar on motorcycle No.HR-20F-8160.

When they reached in the area of village Mochiwala, the jeep in question being driven by Rajender Singh – appellant No.1 came from the side of village Jandli and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, Hans Raj fell down and suffered multiple injuries, and ultimately succumbed to the same.

FIR No.83 dated 17.3.2007 under Sections 304-A, etc.IPC was FAO No.6864 of 2010 [2].registered in Police Station Bhuna against appellant No.1.

Respondents No.1 to 4 being the widow and minor children of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

After analysis of the evidence led before it, the Tribunal concluded that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by appellant No.1.

Further based on the evidence, the Tribunal held that claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,91,000/- along with interest.

Issue No.4 regarding the driving of the jeep in violation of the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy was decided against the appellants on the ground that at the time of the accident, the jeep was not covered with a valid and effective Insurance Policy.

Accordingly, the appellants were held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

To prove that the jeep was having a valid insurance policy, the appellants had relied upon cover note Mark-J issued on 16.3.2007 at about 11.10 am, as per which the jeep bearing Reg.No.HR-22D-4874 was insured.

To the contrary, the Insurance Company had proved on record the Insurance Policy (Exhibit R-8).which depicts that the jeep was insured w.e.f.18.3.2007 (6.30 pm) till 17.3.2008 (midnight) and the said policy was issued on 22.3.2007.

The Insurance Company had also placed on record a carbon copy of the Motor Cover Note Book No.128686, containing 25 cover notes i.e.SL NO.34410751 to 34410775.

Cover Note No.34410771 relates to the jeep, which was issued on 17.3.2007 and as per this document, the vehicle was insured for the period w.e.f.18.3.2007 (6.30 pm) till 17.3.2008 (midnight).On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the Insurance Cover mark-J was neither an exhibited document, nor has been proved by any witness and it was further FAO No.6864 of 2010 [3].observed that this document was contrary to the documents produced by the Company and is a fabricated one.

Accordingly, since the jeep was not proved to be covered under the Insurance Policy at the time of accident, respondent – Insurance Company was absolved of its liability to pay the compensation and this liability was fastened upon the appellants.

At the time of arguments before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has stressed that the cover note Mark-J is a valid and authentic document, which proves that the jeep was fully insured at the time of the accident on 17.3.2007.

It is contended that the cover note Mark-J was issued on 16.3.2007 at about 11.10 am and that the Tribunal has erred in not relying on this document and terming it a fabricated document.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, including the documents relied upon by the parties (Exhibits R-8, R-9 and Mark-J).this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned Award.

Exhibit R-9 is carbon copy of the Motor Cover Note Book No.128686, which contains cover notes No.34410751 to 34410775, i.e.25 cover notes, which have been issued as under:- Cover Note No.Date of issue Insurance Period 34410751 15-2-2007 18.2.2007 to 17.2.2008 Xxx Xxx Xxx 34410769 17.3.2007 19.3.2007 to 18.3.2008 34410770 17.3.2007 18.3.2007 to 17.3.2008 34410771 17.3.2007 18.3.2007 to 17.3.2008 34410772 17.3.2007 19.3.2007 to 18.3.2008 34410773 17.3.2007 19.3.2007 to 18.3.2008 34410774 20.3.2007 21.3.2007 to 20.3.2008 34410775 20.3.2007 21.3.2007 to 20.3.2008 The record shows that the fiRs.cover note was issued on 15.2.2007 FAO No.6864 of 2010 [4].and the last cover note of the book was issued on 20.3.2007.

All the cover-notes have been duly filled in seriatim date-wise and with time mentioned in each.

This leaves no room to doubt the authenticity of the Motor Cover Note Book.

The Cover Note No.34410771 relating to the Jeep was issued on 17.3.2007, vide which the vehicle was insured for the period w.e.f.18.3.2007 till midnight of 17.3.2008.

Corresponding to this Cover note, Insurance Policy (Exhibit R-8) was also issued insuring the offending jeep for the same period, as mentioned in the Cover note.

The Insurance Company has also led evidence before the Tribunal to the effect that the it moved a complaint (Exhibit R-2) before the Superintendent of Police for initiating criminal proceedings against appellant No.2 and against its agent Sanjay and one Manav Jain for fabricating the Insurance Cover Note.

In the light of the above discussion, the finding of the Tribunal that the Jeep was not insured at the time of accident, is upheld and thus, the appellants are liable to make payment of compensation.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

May 06, 2014 ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) `gian' JUDGE Kumar Gianender 2014.05.19 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court