Disposed

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. v. Rajender Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2009CR/3204/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a Civil Revision dismissing the petitioner's request to summon witnesses against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order. The Court directed the petitioner to be allowed to adduce evidence to prove its insurance policy was effective at the time of the accident.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to summon the relevant Clerk and Registration Authority to produce the record and be given liberty to adduce evidence.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs Rajender Singh and… — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 3204 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

Civil Revision No. 3204 of 2009 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 3.12.2009

¶6

Iffcoo Tokio General Insurance Company Petitioner.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Smt. Roshni and others Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL.

¶10

Present:- Mr. R.S.Madan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate, for the respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶12

Mr. Surinder Dhull, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 and 6.

¶13

A.N.JINDAL, J.

¶14

Challenge is to the order dated 5.5.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') vide which the request of the petitioner-Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited (herein referred as 'the petitioner') to summon the concerned Clerk of National Insurance Company and also the Clerk from the office of the Registration Authority, Fatehabad along with record of transfer and registration of the offending jeep (HR22D-4874) was declined.

¶15

Bried facts in the background are that on

¶16

Civil Revision No. 3204 of 2009 (O&M) 2

¶17

17.3.2007, at about 6.45 PM when Hans Raj along with his brother was going on motor cycle bearing Reg. No. HR20F-8160, Rajender Singh respondent No.5 while driving Mahindra Jeep (pick up) bearing Reg. No. HR22D-4874 rashly and negligently struck against the motor cycle, as a result of which Hans Raj received multiple injuries and died. As an aftermath of the accident, the claim petition was filed by the claimants – respondents No. 1 to 4, which is pending.

¶18

The petitioner raised the plea that the policy of insurance was not genuine as it was not issued on 17.3.2007.

¶19

Heard.

¶20

The record as produced by the petitioner reveals that it issued the insurance policy at 11.10 AM on 16.3.2007, which was effective from 11.10 AM on 17.3.2007. Thus it would be presumed that the policy was effective from 11.10 A.M. of 17.3.2007 whereas the accident had occurred at 6.15 PM on 17.3.2007 (by which time the aforesaid policy had become effective). However, since the offending jeep was insured with the National Insurance Company, prior to the accident, therefore, the application moved for summoning the concerned Clerk of the National Insurance Company

¶21

Civil Revision No. 3204 of 2009 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

along with the record pertaining to Armada Jeep, previously bearing Reg. No. HP-34A/1384 with Engine No. 70053 and Chasis No. 48507, as also the Clerk of the Registration Authority, Fatehabad along with record of the transfer of the vehicle, was of no consequence.

¶24

However, keeping in view the principles of natural justice and also that each and everyone should be allowed to submit his whole case, so that the Court may impart complete justice to the litigant parties, it has become essential to provide opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence of its choice.

¶25

In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the direction that Company would be at liberty to adduce its evidence by summoning the witnesses concerned.

¶26

03.12.2009 Anoop/tripti

¶27

(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. v. Rajender Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. v. Rajender Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balbir Kaur Gandhi and Ors. Vs Manav Foundation and Ors.

Tarun Mehedru Vs Hry. Urban Develop. Authority & Ors.

M/S Kalu Ram Bihari Mal and Ors. Vs M/S Shashi Kant Rohit Kumar Ahuja and Ors.

Harjit Singh and Anr. Vs Northern India Motion Pictures Association

Vinod Kumar Vs Sat Pal Kapur

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lachmi Devi and Ors.