Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bakshish Singh & Others vs Balwinder Singh & Others on 1 May, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO Nos.131,132,133,134,135,136 of 2011 and 267,271,273 of
2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.131 of 2011
In MACT Case No. 18 of 2008-2009
Date of decision: 1.5.2012
1.Bakshish Singh & others ...Appellants
Versus
Balwinder Singh & others ..Respondents
FAO No.132 of 2011
In MACT Case No. RBT No.72 of 2008
2.Anita Rani ..Appellant
Versus
Balwinder Singh & others ..Respondents
FAO No.133 of 2011
In MACT Case No. 17 of 2008-2009
3.Satwinder Kumar & Others ..Appellants
Versus
Balwinder Singh & others ..Respondents
FAO No.134 of 2011
In MACT Case No. 73 of 2008
4. Pardip Kumar ..Appellant
Versus
Balwinder Singh & others ..Respondents
FAO Nos.131,132,133,134,135,136 of 2011 and 267,271,273 of
2011 -2-
FAO No.135 of 2011
In MACT Case No. 19 of 2008-2009
5. Hardip Singh & another ..Appellants
Versus
Balwinder Singh & others ..Respondents
FAO No.136 of 2011
In MACT Case No. 71 of 2008
6. Renu Bala ..Appellant
Versus
Balwinder Singh & others ..Respondents
FAO No.267 of 2011
In MACT Case No. 17 of 2008-2009
7. Sandip Kumar ..Appellant
Versus
Balwinder Singh & others ..Respondents
FAO No.271 of 2011
In MACT Case No. 15 of 2008-2009
8.Sandip Kumar ..Appellant
Versus
Balwinder Singh & others ..Respondents
FAO No.273 of 2011
In MACT Case No. 16 of 2008-2009
9. Sandip Kumar ..Appellant
FAO Nos.131,132,133,134,135,136 of 2011 and 267,271,273 of
2011 -3-
Versus
Balwinder Singh & others ..Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate,
for the appellant.( In all the appeals )
Mr. Manoj Pundir and
Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
` Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate
for Insurance-Company.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)
The appellants-claimants have preferred these appeals for setting aside the impugned award dated 31.5.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, awarding compensation on account of death of the occupants of Tata Sumo bearing No. PB-02-Q-9012 in a vehicular accident that took place on 18.4.2008, vide which the learned Tribunal fastened the liability of driver and the owner to pay the compensation, absolving the liability of Insurance Company.
The brief facts of the case in hand are that on 18.4.2008 at about 3.45 p.m, Sandeep Kumar along with Ravinder Kaur, Sajjan, Manjit Kaur, Inderjit Kaur, Rajan, Satwinder Kumar, Pushpatwati, Renu Bala and Anita was coming from Sarhali towards Ajnala, after attending a bhog on Tata Sumo bearing registration No. PB-02-Q- 9212. When they reached behind Adda Thathian Mohantan, a mini bus bearing registration NO. PB-02-AG-9735, being driven by FAO Nos.131,132,133,134,135,136 of 2011 and 267,271,273 of 2011 -4- Balwinder Singh, driver of the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner struck against the Tata Sumo, as a result thereof the occupants of the Tata Sumo succumbed to their injuries.
Feeling aggrieved against the award claimants-appellants preferred the present appeals for setting aside the impugned award qua Issue No.4 which is common in all the above mentioned appeals i.e. "Issue No.4:- To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled for and from which of the respondents? OPP"
The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.4, in all the appeals is erroneous. He contends that the Insurance Company in its written statement before the learned Tribunal has taken a specific plea that Cover Note Ex-R-2 was stolen, whereas in the evidence led by the Insurance company has taken plea that the same was lost. Therefore, Insurance company had taken contradictory stand with regard to Ex R-2 cover note. Moreover, the Insurance company had not lodged any complaint with regard to the theft of Cover Note Ex R-
2. He further contends that Ex R-2 Cover Note was issued by the authorized Agent of Insurance company after obtaining premium from Surinder Kumar who is the owner of the offending vehicle. He further states that offending bus bearing No PB-02-AG-9735 was duly insured with the Insurance company vide policy No.CW0610388404 valid w.e.f. 16.4.2008 to 15.4.2009 covering the date of accident i.e. 18.4.2008.
FAO Nos.131,132,133,134,135,136 of 2011 and 267,271,273 of 2011 -5- The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company contends that offending bus was never insured with the Insurance company at the time of the accident. Cover Note ExR-2 produced on record is a false and fabricated document as no insurance premium has been paid by the insurer to the Insurance company. He further contends that the said cover note was lost, and a DDR to that effect bearing No 21/2008 was registered at Police Station, Amritsar. He further states that offending bus bearing No. PB-02-AG-9735 was not insured as no premium was received by the company.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of the record it emerges that the vehicle was not insured with the Insurance company. It is further not proved that any payment was made by the insurer to the Insurance Company. From the bare reading of the record it is also not proved that the cover Note Ex-R-2 in fact was issued by the Insurance company. The onus to prove that there was effective Insurance policy, was on the owner of the offending vehicle, which he failed to prove. Even the insurer failed to disclose the name of the authorized agent through whom the vehicle was insured. The owner of the offending vehilce Surinder Singh has also changed his stand time and again regarding the handing over of the cheque of premium to the agent Insurance Company. The payment of premium to the Insurance Company or his duly authorised agent is not proved. Thus, there is no privity of contract between the parties. The findings on FAO Nos.131,132,133,134,135,136 of 2011 and 267,271,273 of 2011 -6- issue No.4 are affirmed. Hence the present appeals are liable to be dismissed.
Resultantly the present nine appeals filed by the claimants- appellants for setting aside the findings on issue No.4 of the learned Tribunal are hereby dismissed.
1.5.2012. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) aarti JUDGE