Allowed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nasib Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2012CR/1563/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner-Insurance Company to lead additional evidence regarding a fake driving licence in a motor accident claim. The impugned orders of the Tribunal were set aside and the petitioner was directed to pay costs to claimants.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Tribunal setting aside the closure of petitioner's evidence were set aside; additional evidence permitted; costs of Rs. 2,500 to each claimant directed to be paid.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nasib… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1563 of 2010 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 1563 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2012

¶4

National Insurance Company Ltd.

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

¶7

Naseeb Singh and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. R. C. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate for respondent-Ram Sahore.

¶12

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶13

This order will dispose of three petitions bearing Civil Revision Nos. 1563 to 1565 of 2010, as the same arise out of similar orders passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short, `the Tribunal') in three claim petitions arising out of one accident.

¶14

The petitions have been filed by the Insurance Company impugning the orders dated 18.12.2009 and 20.2.2010, passed by the Tribunal, whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order and the application filed by it for permission to lead additional evidence was dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that evidence of the petitioner-Insurance Company was closed on 18.12.2009, however, as

¶16

Civil Revision No. 1563 of 2010 [2]

¶17

the report regarding driving licence carried by the driver of the offending vehicle being genuine or fake had not been received by that time, evidence to that effect could not be led. The report was received after the evidence was closed and an application was filed in January, 2010 for seeking permission to lead additional evidence to that effect. The same has been declined by the Tribunal without appreciating the fact that it is the public money. The petitioner was not at fault as it takes some time in getting the verification report regarding driving licence. The petitioner's interest regarding recovery rights will be protected in case the driving licence is found to be fake. He further submitted that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were proceeded against ex-parte before the Tribunal and in the present petition, only the owner is represented. He prays for setting aside of the impugned orders and grant of opportunity for leading additional evidence.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-owner submitted that despite numerous opportunities afforded to the petitioner, no evidence regarding driving licence being fake, was led. It is too late to pray for permitting the petitioner to lead additional evidence to that effect.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

¶20

The stand of the petitioner is that the evidence, which is sought to be led, is to the extent that the driving licence held by the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was fake. The stand taken in the application is that report regarding the driving licence being fake was received by the petitioner after its evidence had been closed, meaning thereby it came to its knowledge after closure of the evidence. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle were also stated to be ex-parte before the Tribunal, though the owner is represented before this court. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the prayer made by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside. The additional evidence regarding the driving licence of the driver being fake is permitted to be led. However, the same shall be subject to payment of ` 2,500/- as cost to each of the claimants in the petitions, which shall be paid

¶21

Civil Revision No. 1563 of 2010 [3]

¶22

by way of demand draft before the Tribunal before the evidence is led. The petitions stand disposed of.

¶23

( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 18.5.2012 mk

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nasib Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nasib Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Rana and Anr. Vs Pawan Chhabra and Anr.

Avinash Kumar Vs Alka Rani

Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs Prem Chand & Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nasib Singh and Ors.

Baleshwar Vs Rajinder Singh and Anr.

Davinder Singh Randhawa Vs Sumeet Kaur Randhawa