HARBANS LAL Vs. SHINGARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal by the owner and driver is on an issue of alleged involvement of the vehicle as well as the insured's entitlement to a policy cover for the claim arising out of the accident. It was a case of a woman, aged 53 years, who while travelling in a rickshaw, was run over by the truck belonging to respondents 1 and 2 by the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent in the petition before M.A.C.T. The respondent denied the involvement of the vehicle and contended that yet another truck had dashed against the deceased but the vehicle had sped away without stopping and the driver of the truck who had parked his vehicle in the vicinity and who happened to be an eyewitness to the accident took the deceased to the hospital on humanitarian grounds but the claimants have foisted a false case for the only reason that the deceased was transported to the hospital through the respondent's truck. A F.I.R. registered on the same day makes reference to the involvement of the truck and also names the driver of the vehicle. It is too artificial to believe that a person, who attempted to be a savior, would be treated as a villain of the piece and a complaint could have been lodged against him. There is simply no reason for such a false implication and I would take this only to be an illustration of a flat denial to assist his own defence in the criminal trial and not a statement in truth before the Tribunal. The fact of acquittal argued as one of the points before me is irrelevant. The Tribunal's finding has been anchored to documents and the evidence of eyewitness. I confirm the finding regarding the involvement of the vehicle. As regards the liability, the Tribunal has declined the benefit of indemnity on the ground that the policy of insurance filed in court was for a period subsequent to the accident and that therefore there had been no valid insurance. Along with the appeal, an application has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC setting out the fact that the claim. petition itself has been filed merely 2 years after the accident, namely, on 14.06.1997 when the accident had taken place on 30.07.1995 and at that time when the defence was prepared and when the trial was in progress, the owner had filed erroneously the policy for the period when the trial was in progress. The vehicle had been insured even at the time of the accident and the application for additional evidence produced before court has brought a copy of the insurance. It bears the seal of the Insurance Company and it is seen as an insurance policy for the vehicle No. PAT-4655 which was valid for the period from 17.05.1995 to 16.05.1996. The insurance cover was therefore very much available on the date of accident and the liability as assessed by the Tribunal ought to have been directed to be borne by the insurer. This document was relevant and I take it to be necessary for being received as an additional evidence. The Insurance Company itself has not filed any objection to the application filed for reception of additional evidence nor has it denied the policy which has been filed along with the application. The award of the Tribunal is modified of providing to the appellants a full indemnity and the right of enforcement of the claim shall be available for the claimants against the Insurance Company. If any portion of the award has been paid by the appellants, they will claim the recovery not against the claimants but only against the Insurance Company. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. There is no representation for the respondents/cross objectors. Cross objection is consequently dismissed.