- (1.) B. S. Verma, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short the Act) against the judgment and Award dated 11-8-1982, passed in MAC, Petition No. 127 of 1978, Smt. Chandra Rani Vs. Mool Chand Tyagi and others, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/additional District Judge, Dehradun (for short the Tribu nal), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 36,000/- along with in terest @ 6% per annum against the In surance Company- O. R No. 4, as men tioned in the impugned order. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company-appellant has "come up in appeal.
(2.) RELEVANT facts of the case are that initially the claim petition under Section 110-B of the Act was filed by claimant Smt. Chandra Rani in respect of death of her husband Desh Raj, aged about 48 years and earning Rs. 400/- per month as salary in a vehicular accident involving Vehicle No. UTL-4638, which was being driven rashly and negligently by O. R No. 3 Yashpal on 11-/-1978 with the result the deceased sustained griev ous injuries and consequently died. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 57,600/ -. It comes out from the record that the Vehicle was owned by O. R No. 2 who is the registered owner of the vehi cle. Since the proposal for insurance of the vehicle was signed by Mool Chand Tyagi, he was arrayed as owner of the vehicle. The Opposite No. 4- appellant is the insurer of the vehicle. The owner and driver of the ve hicle did not come forward to contest the claim petition. Only the Insurance Company filed written statement and resisted the proceedings denying all the allegations made in the claim petition. It was pleaded that there was no con tract between the owner and the insur ance company and that the vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. It was asserted that on 15-/-78 Mool Chand Tyagi approached the agent of the company for insurance of the vehi cle in question given effect to insurance from 10th July 1978. According to in surance company, it was informed by said Mool Chand that there was no claim for the period between 10th to 15th July, else he would be responsible. The proposal was submitted and depos ited the premium of Rs. 387/ -. Sri Tyagi not being the registered owner, the pro posat was not accepted and the amount received was refunded. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues. After recording the evidence led by the contesting parties, it was held that Desh Raj sustained injuries and died as a result thereof in the motor vehicle accident involving vehicle No. UTL-4638 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. On the point of insurance, the learned Tribunal has concluded that it is admitted by the Insurance Company that a Cover Note was issued, which was subsequently revoked. In the writ ten statement, it was asserted by the appellant that the proposal was rejected almost three months later on the pretext that Mool Chand Tyagi who preferred the proposal was discovered to be not the registered owner. The contention of the Insurance Company that it came to know about the ownership of vehicle was not accepted because in the pro posal, Mahendra Kumar was mentioned to be the owner of the vehicle. The record of the case shows that on the basis of the proposal form, the insur ance cover note was issued for the pe riod 10-/-1978 to 9-/-1979, though it was issued on 15-/-1978. The Insurance Company had undertaken in writing (pa per no. 61b) that no claim had arisen between the period 10-/- 1978 and 15-/-1978. The fact that Cover Note was issued w. e. f. 10-/-1978 goes against the plea taken by the Insurance Company. Before the Tribunal the Insurance Com pany-appellant entirely failed to substan tiate its contentions raised in the writ ten statement. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that the vehicle was duly insured on the date of accident. Ulti mately, the Tribunal awarded compen sation of Rs. 36,000/- along with inter est @ 6% per annum against the appel lant-Insurance Company.
(3.) IN this appeal, the impugned award has been assailed mainly on the ground that the finding of the Tribunal that the vehicle was insured on the date of accident is not based on evidence on record. I have heard Sri K. K. Sah learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri T. A. Khan, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent.;