The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition by an insurance company challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's rejection of a memo seeking insurance policy details. The Court held that evidence was closed and the details were available in the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, making later remedial action untenable.
No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
C.R.P. No.5112 of 2008
Dated 26-8-2010
Between:
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Senior Divisional Manager, D.O.2, Visakhapatnam.
…Petitioner.
And:
Abdul Bhasha and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
C.R.P. No.5112 of 2008
ORDER:
This revision is at the instance of the Insurance Company against the orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Parvatipuram dated 29-7-2008 in M.O.P.No.1121 of 2005 in rejecting the Memo filed by the petitioner.
The compensation case in M.O.P.No.1121 of 2005 was filed by the claimants, impleading the petitioner-Insurance Company on the basis of Ex.A.2 report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector wherein he had mentioned the Policy Number, Card Number and name of the Insurance Company and based on that, the claimants had sought and instituted the claim against the petitioner-Insurance Company.
In the counter filed by the petitioner, they had specifically denied the insurance coverage by contending that the claimants have failed to comply with Section 64 V B of the Insurance Act and the Rules.
Further in the affidavit filed before the Tribunal, on behalf of the Senior Divisional Manager, it was stated as follows:
“The 2n d petitioner in main O.P.(R2) was examined as P.W.1 and filed certified copy of accident report of M.V.Inspector, Parvathipuram marked as Ex.A.2 wherein it was noted in Column No.15 as I.C.No.082026 with Oriental Insurance Company and that is not mentioned from which Branch the Insurance Police is taken. Our company has taken a specific stand that the claimants have not furnished sufficient particulars of Insurance with regard to the accident vehicle. Even then the claimants have not furnished any details. Suddenly they have filed Ex.A.2 during the trial which also has not disclosed the details and the branch on which the policy is taken. Out company has several branches all over India. As the claimants have not given the particulars of the policy number and branch code it has become very difficult and impossible for our company to trace out the details of the policy in the absence of the branch code and we sincerely feel that the said policy is not covered by our company after due verification.”
The petitioner also filed a Memo before the Tribunal seeking direction to claimants to furnish the particulars with respect to the Insurance Policy. The said Memo however has been rejected by the Tribunal under the impugned order dated 29-7-2008 on the ground that the particulars mentioned by the Motor Vehicle Inspector were not objected to by the petitioner at the earlier point of time and after closure of the evidence of the claimants, the Memo has been filed. The Tribunal has rejected the said Memo and aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is clear from the counter as well as the affidavit referred to above, that the Insurance Company has verified all the details mentioned in column No.15 of Ex.A.2 report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector
which is insufficient and as such, in order to effectively adjudicate upon the issue involved, the claimants be called upon to furnish the said details.
Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that the claim petition has already progressed to the stage of trial and the claimants evidence is already completed and at the fag end of the trial, the present petitioners have moved the present Memo, he therefore, submits that the order of the Tribunal in rejecting the Memo is justified.
It is no doubt true that the petitioner-Insurance Company has denied its liability and they have also stated in the affidavit referred to above dated 5-8-2008 that the information mentioned in Ex.A.2 is insufficient and correct particulars are required to be given by the claimants. However, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in view of the fact that the claimants have already led their evidence and the details according to the claimants are already available under Ex.A.2 as the claimants are said to be rustic villagers. At this distance of time, it may not be possible for them to get the details of the insurance coverage as desired by the petitioner relating to the accident which occurred on 6-1-1993 and the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the rival contentions and rejected the Memo. The parties having been already at the stage of trial on the issues involved, it is open for the petitioner to lead necessary evidence and raise appropriate contentions as are available to them under law.
This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
_____________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 26-8-2010.
Dvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
C.R.P. No.5112 of 2008
Dated 26-8-2010
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of a memo by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to call for insurance policy particulars should be allowed.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Abdul Bhasha
Vilas V. Afzalpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
