R.K.Gauba, J. - (1.) On 10.09.2008 accident claim case (suit no. 514/ 10 /2008) was filed by the first respondent (the claimant) seeking compensation under section 166 read with section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 on the averments that on 12.08.2008, he had suffered injuries in motor vehicular accident that had occurred due to negligent driving of a three-wheeler scooter bearing registration no. DL-1RG-8591(TSR). The claimant had impleaded as respondents, the second and third respondents herein describing them as the driver and owner respectively of the TSR. Additionally, the appellant was impleaded as a respondent in the claim case on the basis of averments that it was the insurer of the TSR against third party risk for the period in question. The case was contested by all the said parties including the appellant. The second and third respondents have filed a joint written statement on 23.10.2013, the pleadings contained therein also responding to the position taken by the appellant herein in its written statement submitted on 23.12.2009 denying any privity of contract disputing that the policy no. 4006/2985445/00/000 (page 255 of the tribunal's record) which had been referred to by the claimant was never issued as motor insurance policy, it being a forged and manipulated document. During the course of inquiry, the second and third respondents examined Manoj Kumar (R2W1) to bring on record his version to the that the third respondent (Pushupati Pandit) had been introduced by him to an agent name Pintu through whom the insurance policy in question had been purchased from the appellant. The appellant on the other hand examined Vivek Yadav (r3w1) to prove its contention that the particulars given concerning the insurance policy actually relate to money insurance policy and that no such insurance cover had been issued in respect of TSR. It is pertinent to note here that at the stage when R3W1 was examined by the appellant, the second and third respondents herein had opted to suffer the proceeding ex parte.
(2.) The tribunal, by its judgment dated 14.03.2016, however, decided to fasten the liability on the appellant observing inter alia that the document in question clearly shows the particulars of the TSR in question referring to the possibility that the insurance company officials may have been in collusion with the agents to dupe innocent customers.
(3.) Aggrieved with the above decision of the tribunal, the insurance company filed the present appeal denying any liability to indemnify asserting that the document is false and fabricated one which cannot be permitted to be used.;