NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot, (in short 'the Tribunal') whereby application of the petitioner for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that in an accident, one Walaiti Ram died while he was going on a cycle from Muktsar to Kot-Kapura. His legal heirs filed a claim application in which they claimed that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of jeep driver. The driver as well as the owner filed their written statement. The Insurance Company (petitioner herein) made an application for a direction to the owner and the driver to produce original policy of insurance and driving licence. In reply to that application, particulars of insurance were supplied, but policy was not produced as it was stated that the same had been lost. Thereafter, the insurance company filed its written statement to the claim application, denying the material averments made in the claim application, but admitted para No. 15 of the same in which particulars of insurance had been given. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues. The claimants were called upon to lead evidence and after leading of evidenee by the claimants, an application was filed by the insurance company for the amendment of the written statement. In the application, it was stated that on checking of records, the insurance company had discovered that jeep in question was not insured with the company at the time of accident. According to the insurance company, the jeep was insured prior to the date of accident and, therefore, the insurance company sought to amend the written statement so as to take up the plea that policy of insurance was valid from 22-9-1987 to 21-9-1988 and thus, did not cover the risk of alleged accident which took place on 17-101988 Application on contest was dismissed. The Insurance company has impugned the order of the Tribual in the present revision petition.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. On filing of written statement by the owner and the driver, an application was made by she insurance company for a direction to the owner and the driver to provide particulars of insurance and also to produce origin 1 policy of insurance Particulars of insurance were provided, but policy of insurance was not produced as according to the driver and the owner, the same had been lost. The Insurance company on verification of particulars of insurance, admitted the same. When application for amendment of written statement was filed, copy of the policy was not brought on record from where it could be inferred that period of policy of insurance had expired before the accident. I am in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal that insurance company after having admitted the offending vehicle stood insured with it cannot be allowed to turn around and say that it was misled by the wrong description of the date of accident. In the claim application; the date of accident was clearly mentioned not only at one place, but at two places and, therefore, it is not open to the insurance company to say that the date of accident was not clearly mentioned.