AJAY TEWARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the driver/owner of the offending three -wheeler against the award dated 26.07.2000 fastening the liability on him and exonerating the insurance compensation. X -Objection has also been filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 -claimants for the enhancement of compensation on account of death of Indraj Singh, aged 42 years, in a motor vehicular accident.
(2.) THE Tribunal while taking the income of Rs.5242/ - p.m. assessed the dependency at Rs.3400/ - p.m. by applying the deduction of 1/3rd. The Tribunal further ordered the multiplier of 12 and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,89,600/ - along with interest @ 12% p.a. As regards the appeal filed by the driver/owner of the offending vehicle, the precise case of the appellant is that he purchased the three - wheeler on 18.02.1997 and on that very time in the Auto Agency he paid the money for the insurance and he got the cover note Ex.R3. Consequently, as per him when the accident took place he had valid insurance policy. He has further argued that the Tribunal had held that the cover note was obtained after the accident. As per him, to arrive at this conclusion the Tribunal had adopted an extremely convoluted reasoning. The cover note issued to the owner -appellant was Ex.R3 bearing No.752245. On this cover note no time was mentioned. Likewise, the policy issued in favour of the appellant is Annexure R -1. That policy shows the validity of the insurance from 19.02.1997 to Midnight 18.02.1998. As per the learned counsel for the appellant, these two documents shows that at the time of the accident the three -wheeler was insured. However, the Tribunal relied upon the photocopy of the carbon copy of the cover note Ex.R4 bearing No.752244 and held that since on this cover note a time of 10.35 A.M. had been mentioned, the cover notice bearing No.752245 must had been issued after that time and by that time the accident had already taken place.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant -driver/owner has further argued that the document Ex.R4 being a photocopy of a carbon copy could not have been looked at. Further no application for secondary evidence was led neither this fact was pleaded in the written statement.;