Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.2069 of 2004
Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Respondent :- Sri Ram Niwas And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Srivastava Ratan Counsel for Respondent :- S.D. Ojha
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.
1. Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava 'Ratan' for the appellant and Sri S.D. Ojha for the claimant.
2. While going through the record, it appears that record will not be very much necessary as this scanty record can be relied for the basis for deciding the matter.
3. While going through the record, the cover note shows that the policy will be in vogue from 13.2.2001. Nothing has been shown even before the Tribunal that scooterist did not deposit the amount in time. Why the Insurance company gave the cover note, has not been brought on record?
4. By means of this appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned award dated 3.6.2004 passed Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut, in MACP No.514 of 2002 (Ram Niwas Vs. Oriental Insurance Company and others).
5. The submission made here was not proved before the Tribunal just because the application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 was allowed, they cannot be permitted to take defence under Section 147 read with Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The photostat copy of policy shows that it has come in vogue on 13.2.2001. Nothing is mentioned that the amount was paid on 16.2.2001. Hence, in absence of any cogent evidence being led before the Tribunal, the finding of fact cannot be easily interfered with. The DL 5 SC 6002 cover note no.996496 and policy no.21-2001-12925-OICC- BO-I, Meerut, has issued it from 13.2.2001 to 12.2.2002.
The Tribunal has decided the said issue and it was never argued or proved before the Tribunal that the policy was not in vogue. The make of the vehicle is of 1992 and, therefore, also it is not proved even by the evidence of DW1, wherein also this stand has not been taken. He has only produced those documents and, therefore, it is not proved by the Insurance company that the policy was not in vogue.
6. The submission that Sri Tyagi's investigation showed otherwise. However, just because there was no police report, can it be said that the investigation proved that there was no accident which took place. The claimant has sent the accident report on 15.2.2001 to P.S. Medical College, Meerut, therefore, no error can be found in the judgment of the Tribunal. Non filing of F.I.R. does not vitiate the proceedings.
7. The cover note being issued, the liability commences on that day and, therefore, now to contend that the policy was not in vogue, is an after thought. I am supported in my view by the Division Bench decision of this High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Shadma Begum and others, 2002 (I) TAC 405 (All.).
8. The amount of compensation granted is in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) I SCC 343, and, therefore, no interference is called for the reasons mentioned herein. PW2 – Dr. S.N. Sharma has opined that the claimant has 25% of functional disability. He was earning Rs.4,690/- to which 25% is Rs.1,172/- which comes to Rs.1,470. He was 35 years of age and multiplier of 16 which is one more than which he is entitled to have been granted.
9. The Tribunal has already deducted Rs.60,000/- as lump sum amount and, therefore, the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- with 6% interest cannot be said to be calling for any interference.
10. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Irshad