- (1.) The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the award passed on a contention that the insured's vehicle was not involved in the accident. It was a case of a collision between a bus belonging to the Haryana Roadways and a truck bearing Registration No. PAT-7493. The claimant was a representative of the deceased who was a passenger in the bus. The Tribunal found the truck driver to be responsible for the accident and cast the liability on the truck owner and the insurer. There were two appeals filed, one at the instance of the claimants seeking for enhancement in FAO No. 784 of 1994 and another at the instance of the insurer in FAO No. 1493 of 1994. The claim for enhancement was considered and enhancement was ordered by this Court in the decision rendered on 14.12.2010. At the time when the order was passed, it was not brought to the attention of the Court that yet another appeal was filed by the insurer himself. The insurer was the 6th respondent in FAO No. 784 of 1994 and when the Court was enhancing the compensation and making no order changing the issue of liability already cast on the insurer, it must only be taken that the decision rendered already in the presence of the insurer for the truck has become final even as regard liability and the said judgment constituted res judicata for the appeal in FAO No. 1493 of 1994 when it was taken up. There was really nothing to be adjudicated in the appeal brought for hearing subsequently. The learned counsel for the insurer, however, argued that the counsel, who was appearing for the Insurance Company did not know that the Insurance Company itself had filed another appeal in FAO No. 1493 of 1994. The learned counsel would refer me to the docket order passed on 22.08.2012 by a brother Judge, who held that the case would be heard after the service was completed. The Court had directed the matter to be posted for final hearing on 15.11.2012. This posting, in my view, will not alter the situation, for, evidently the order has been passed without adverting to the legal consequence of the disposal of another appeal where enhancement was made and that enhancement must be understood as enhancing the compensation without modifying the issue of liability. There was simply nothing for the Insurance Company to urge afresh in the appeal that was brought for hearing before me.
(2.) Although there was a legal bar to an insurer to plead for fresh consideration, I had to match the passion that the counsel for the Insurance Company exhibited and, therefore, allowed him to give full vent to arguments. The counsel argued that the insured vehicle originally was owned by Sukhdev Singh and he had been made as a party in the petition filed by the claimants. Sukhdev Singh contended that he was not actually in possession of the vehicle at the time when the accident took place and that he had sold it to Gurcharan Singh, who was the insured and who had taken the insurance from the appellant/ insurer. Gurcharan Singh also pleaded that although he was a purchaser, his vehicle was not involved in the accident. As a transferor, Sukhdev Singh was running yet another truck deceitfully under the same Registration No. PAT-7493. Curiously, in this case, the RC books for both the vehicles produced showed two different chassis numbers, but having same Registration No. PAT-7493. It is inconceivable as to how a same registration number could have come but the Tribunal could not in its summary proceedings find out which RC book was genuine. It merely observed the fact that there was sufficient evidence to render a finding that the vehicle bearing Registration No. PAT-7493 was involved in the accident and the policy of insurance produced only showed the identity of the vehicle with reference to the registration number and contained no reference to the chassis number. Although Gurcharan Singh attempted to show that his own vehicle was plying elsewhere and had produced some toll passes in a far away place at the relevant time of the accident, the Tribunal rejected them as irrelevant by a reasoning that so long as the identity of the vehicle with reference to the registration number and the policy tallied, the liability of the insurer had been clearly established. In this case, if there was ever a doubt for the insurer that the vehicle which they had insured having Registration No. PAT-7493 was not involved, the Insurance Company must have clarified the doubt by either serving notice to Sukhdev Singh which was statutorily permissible to elicit the details of the accident or it should have at least summoned the original records from the DTO's office and elicited which of the RC book relied on by the parties was genuine. It should have been further possible for the insurer to protect itself better by having a chassis number itself incorporated in the insurance policy. Even that was not done. It was fair enough that the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company was bound to pay the awarded amount.
(3.) The plea for exclusion of liability made by the insurer cannot therefore survive favourable consideration. The appeal by the insurer is dismissed.;