Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar And Others vs Rajender And Another on 17 January, 2014
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO-3350-2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-3350-2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.01.2014
Raj Kumar and others
...Appellants
Versus
Rajender and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: None for the appellants.
None for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate,
for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants- owner and driver, challenging the impugned Award dated 26.11.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, (for short, 'the Tribunal').
It has been pleaded in the appeal that that the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company to indemnify the claimants inasmuch as the amount of premium for renewal of the insurance policy was handed over to one Vipin Dagar, an Sethi Atul 2014.03.19 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO-3350-2012 -2- agent of the respondent-Insurance Company, in cash and the policy was obtained from him. However, said Vipin Dagar did not deposit the amount further with the company and for the misconduct of an employee of the company, the appellants should not be made to suffer. It has been further pleaded that the compensation awarded is on the higher side.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the liability has rightly been fastened upon the appellants as no insurance policy was in existence on the date of the accident.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
The constant stand of the appellants is that the owner had paid the premium for renewal of the insurance policy in cash. However, he did not produce the original cover note before the trial Court which must have a mention as regards the mode of payment. On the contrary, the respondent-insurance company, brought on record the proposal form, i.e. photocopy of the cover note, Ex.R-4, wherein it has been mentioned that the payment of the premium was being made through cheque, Ex.R-8. However, the said cheque was subsequently dishonoured vide memo, Ex.R-7. This fact was also brought to the notice of the owner vide letter, Ex.R-10. The cancellation of the policy due to cheque dishonour Sethi Atul 2014.03.19 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO-3350-2012 -3- is proved by Ex.R-12. It is also not in dispute that the cheuqe, Ex.R-8, bears the signatures of Vipin Dagar, and not the owner himself, however, this fact does not have any material bearing as the only concern of the insurance company is the receipt of payment and anyone would have issued the cheque.
Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that on the date of the accident there was no privity of contract and no insurance policy was in existence for which, the liability could have fastened upon the insurance company. It being the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly held the appellant, owner and driver, liable to satisfy the award. The learned Tribunal, on objective analysis of the entire evidence, has recorded a categorical finding that respondent No.1-appellant herein, was rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle. There is no contrary evidence that the he was not rash and negligent. In view of the same, no fault can be found in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal.
Dismissed.
17.01.2014 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Sethi Atul 2014.03.19 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh