Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) Core question which arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether strict rules of pleadings and proof are applicable in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act?
(2.) This question emerges in the circumstances set out below:- "(i) Deceased Giriraj Singh who was driving Bus No. RNB 191 on March 16th, 1984 got, an accident with another Bus No. RSB 538 and died at the spot. His family members filed claim-petition. The Tribunal framed as many as five issues from the pleadings of the parties which have been reproduced in the judgment. Smt. Kaushlya, the wife of the deceased examined herself and produced two witnesses AW 2 Gopal and AW 3 Ravindra Prakash. Respondents examined NAW 1 Bhim Singh NAW 2 Bhagwan Das. (ii) The Tribunal, though while deciding document which would be helpful in doing justice in the course to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant who are under an obligation to act fairly. In many cases-even the owner of the vehicle for reasons known to him does not choose to produce the policy or a copy thereof. We accordingly, wish to emphasise that in all such cases where the Insurance Company concerned wishes to take a defence in claim-petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy alongwith its defence. Even in the instant case had it been done so at the appropriate stage, necessity of approaching this Court in civil appeal would in all probability have been avoided. Filing a copy of the policy, therefore, not only cuts short avoidable litigation but also helps the Court in doing justice between the parties." The controversy raised in appeal now is also with regard to limited liability of the appellant, the United India Insurance Company. The matter here concerns the accident which resulted in the death of Roshan Lal, who had been run over and killed by Matador No. DBL 9865. A finding of rash and negligent driving had been returned by the Tribunal against the driver of the Matador, Naresh Kumar. The liability for the payment of the amount of Rs. 8,07,912/- as compensation, was fastened upon the owner of the Matador, as also the appellant Insurance Company with which the Matador stood insured.
(3.) The only argument canvassed in the appeal by Mr. P.S. Shukla, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is that the liability of Insurance Company was limited to the extent of statutory liability but the learned Tribunal has erroneously held that the Insurance Company would be liable for the entire amount awarded as compensation. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1988 SC 719 : 1988 (1) T.A.C. 418 , Smt. Rajendra Kumar and another v. Smt. Shanta Trivedi and others, AIR 1989 SC 1074 : 1989 (1) T.A.C. 334 , Surjit Kaur and others v. Harkhajan Singh and others, 1996 ACJ 457 , Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jalaja and others, 1995 ACJ 829 : 1995(1) T.A.C. 546 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Lal and others, 1988 (Supp.) SCC 506 , New India Assurance Co. v. Jagan Nath Singh, 1995 ACJ 683 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Bhiki and others, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 122/88, decided on 4th January, 1996 by this Court.;