National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by Its Divisional Manager Vs. Dangeti Pydemsetty and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
common order:as all these civil revision petitions arise out of separate but identical orders between the same parties, they are heard and being disposed of together. respondent no.1 has entered appearance through sri b.gajendra reddy, learned counsel. at the hearing, he is not present. even though notices have not been served on respondent nos.2 and 3, as they are only driver and the owner of the vehicle insured with the petitioner- national insurance company limited, kakinada, and which has allegedly caused accident to respondent no.1, their presence for disposal of these civil revision petitions is not necessary. hence, this court decided to dispose of these three civil revision petitions without awaiting service of notices on the said respondents. respondent no.1 filed op.no.768 of 2009 claiming rs.4 lakhs as compensation for the alleged amputation of his left leg due to the accident taken place on 28-12-2008. he has pleaded that the vehicle owned by respondent no.3 and driven by respondent no.2 was insured with the petitioner. it is his further case that due to the accident, his left leg was crushed and the same was amputated. respondent no.1 filed ex.a.5- disability certificate issued by the area hospital, amalapuram, on 22-01-2011 in support of his claim. the petitioner has filed a written statement on 16-06-2010. the evidence on the side of respondent no.1 was completed by 12-12-2011. when the op was coming up for the evidence on the petitioner’s side, it has filed three ias and one memo. ia.no.1528 of 2011 was filed under order xviii rule 3-a and section 151 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for short ‘cpc’) to permit the petitioner to examine the “district medical board, kakinada”. ia.no.1529 of 2012 was filed under order xvi rule 7-a and section 151 cpc for issuing summons to the superintendent of the district medical board, east godavari district, kakinda, to produce the original document relating to a purported disability certificate, dated 14-12-2008, stated to have been issued by the district medical board on 14-12-2008 i.e., two weeks before the occurrence of the accident. ia.no.1530 of 2011 was filed under order viii rule 9 and section 151 cpc to permit the petitioner to file additional counter. memo sr no.3136 of 2011 was filed under order xii rule 8 cpc to record issuance of notice by the petitioner to respondent no.1 calling upon him to produce the original of the purported disability certificate, dated 14-12-2008, issued by the district medical board, kakinada. all the above ias and the unregistered memo were dismissed by the court of the learned viii additional district judge (fast track court) east godavari district, rajahmundry, by separate orders, dated 17-02-2012. feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed crp.nos.1312, 1878, 1306 and 1524 of 2012 against ia.nos.1528, 1529, 1530 of 2011 and memo (sr) no.3136 of 2012 respectively. the broad purport of the reasoning of the court below in rejecting these applications is that they were filed at a belated stage; that the counter filed by the petitioner has not referred to the alleged disability certificate, dated 14-12-2008; that the witnesses examined on behalf of respondent no.1 have categorically supported his case regarding amputation and that the petitioner ought to have obtained a certified copy of the alleged disability certificate, dated 14-12-2008. i have carefully examined the above-mentioned reasons of the lower court and i am thoroughly unconvinced therewith. time and again the courts have been holding that procedure is the handmaid of justice. the ultimate aim of the court is to get at the truth. if it is, eventually, found that respondent no.1 has suffered disability on 14-12-2008 i.e., two weeks prior to the date of the accident, there will be utter failure of justice in case the doors on the party, which is seeking to prove the said fact, are shut on its face on technicalities. the petitioner being insurance company is, ordinarily, not expected to fabricate a document to deny its liability. the photocopy of the alleged medical disability certificate stated to have been issued by the district medical board kakinada, should have naturally aroused curiosity in the lower court to know the genuineness or otherwise of the claim of respondent no.1 that the amputation has taken place due to the accident.. the lower court, in all earnestness, therefore, ought to have welcomed the additional evidence that is sought to be placed by the petitioner before it to arrive at the proper conclusion instead of proceeding on surmises based on the evidence already available on record. it is not as if the petitions were filed by the petitioner after closure of the entire evidence. the lower court failed to remember that the petitioner is not the natural custodian of document, dated 14-12-2008, which was stated to have been issued by the district medical board to respondent no.1. therefore, the lower court ought not to have made the so-called delay in the petitioner filing the applications and its failure to refer to and speak about the alleged disability certificate, dated 14-12-2008, in its counter filed in the op, as the basis for rejection of the petitioner’s application. in my opinion, the lower court has failed to seize the opportunity presented by the petitioner to know the real truth and the genuineness or otherwise of the claim of respondent no.1. if, ultimately, it is proved that respondent no.1 has already suffered disability before the accident has taken place, awarding of compensation would cause serious prejudice to the public interests apart from encouraging litigants to approach the courts with unclean hands. in all fairness, the lower court ought to have given one opportunity to the petitioner to prove its case by allowing all the applications. for the abovementioned reasons, the orders under revisions are set aside and all the civil revision petitions are allowed. as a sequel, the interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of.

Judgment:

Common Order:

As all these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of separate but identical orders between the same parties, they are heard and being disposed of together. Respondent No.1 has entered appearance through Sri B.Gajendra Reddy, learned Counsel. At the hearing, he is not present. Even though notices have not been served on respondent Nos.2 and 3, as they are only driver and the owner of the vehicle insured with the petitioner- National Insurance Company Limited, Kakinada, and which has allegedly caused accident to respondent No.1, their presence for disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions is not necessary. Hence, this Court decided to dispose of these three Civil Revision Petitions without awaiting service of notices on the said respondents.

Respondent No.1 filed OP.No.768 of 2009 claiming Rs.4 lakhs as compensation for the alleged amputation of his left leg due to the accident taken place on 28-12-2008. He has pleaded that the vehicle owned by respondent No.3 and driven by respondent No.2 was insured with the petitioner. It is his further case that due to the accident, his left leg was crushed and the same was amputated. Respondent No.1 filed Ex.A.5- disability certificate issued by the Area Hospital, Amalapuram, on 22-01-2011 in support of his claim.

The petitioner has filed a written statement on 16-06-2010. The evidence on the side of respondent No.1 was completed by 12-12-2011. When the OP was coming up for the evidence on the petitioner’s side, it has filed three IAs and one memo. IA.No.1528 of 2011 was filed under Order XVIII Rule 3-A and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to permit the petitioner to examine the “District Medical Board, Kakinada”. IA.No.1529 of 2012 was filed under Order XVI Rule 7-A and Section 151 CPC for issuing summons to the Superintendent of the District Medical Board, East Godavari District, Kakinda, to produce the original document relating to a purported disability Certificate, dated 14-12-2008, stated to have been issued by the District Medical Board on 14-12-2008 i.e., two weeks before the occurrence of the accident. IA.No.1530 of 2011 was filed under Order VIII Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC to permit the petitioner to file additional counter. Memo SR No.3136 of 2011 was filed under Order XII Rule 8 CPC to record issuance of notice by the petitioner to respondent No.1 calling upon him to produce the original of the purported disability Certificate, dated 14-12-2008, issued by the District Medical Board, Kakinada.

All the above IAs and the unregistered Memo were dismissed by the Court of the learned VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, by separate Orders, dated 17-02-2012. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed CRP.Nos.1312, 1878, 1306 and 1524 of 2012 against IA.Nos.1528, 1529, 1530 of 2011 and Memo (SR) No.3136 of 2012 respectively.

The broad purport of the reasoning of the Court below in rejecting these applications is that they were filed at a belated stage; that the counter filed by the petitioner has not referred to the alleged disability certificate, dated 14-12-2008; that the witnesses examined on behalf of respondent No.1 have categorically supported his case regarding amputation and that the petitioner ought to have obtained a certified copy of the alleged disability Certificate, dated 14-12-2008.

I have carefully examined the above-mentioned reasons of the lower Court and I am thoroughly unconvinced therewith. Time and again the Courts have been holding that procedure is the handmaid of justice. The ultimate aim of the Court is to get at the truth. If it is, eventually, found that respondent No.1 has suffered disability on 14-12-2008 i.e., two weeks prior to the date of the accident, there will be utter failure of justice in case the doors on the party, which is seeking to prove the said fact, are shut on its face on technicalities. The petitioner being Insurance Company is, ordinarily, not expected to fabricate a document to deny its liability. The photocopy of the alleged medical disability Certificate stated to have been issued by the District Medical Board Kakinada, should have naturally aroused curiosity in the lower Court to know the genuineness or otherwise of the claim of respondent No.1 that the amputation has taken place due to the accident.. The lower Court, in all earnestness, therefore, ought to have welcomed the additional evidence that is sought to be placed by the petitioner before it to arrive at the proper conclusion instead of proceeding on surmises based on the evidence already available on record. It is not as if the petitions were filed by the petitioner after closure of the entire evidence. The lower Court failed to remember that the petitioner is not the natural custodian of document, dated 14-12-2008, which was stated to have been issued by the District Medical Board to respondent No.1. Therefore, the lower Court ought not to have made the so-called delay in the petitioner filing the applications and its failure to refer to and speak about the alleged disability Certificate, dated 14-12-2008, in its counter filed in the OP, as the basis for rejection of the petitioner’s application. In my opinion, the lower Court has failed to seize the opportunity presented by the petitioner to know the real truth and the genuineness or otherwise of the claim of respondent No.1. If, ultimately, it is proved that respondent No.1 has already suffered disability before the accident has taken place, awarding of compensation would cause serious prejudice to the public interests apart from encouraging litigants to approach the Courts with unclean hands. In all fairness, the lower Court ought to have given one opportunity to the petitioner to prove its case by allowing all the applications.

For the abovementioned reasons, the orders under Revisions are set aside and all the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.

As a sequel, the interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand disposed of.