Court No. - 6
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3188 of 2018 Appellant :- Rajveer Singh Respondent :- Dhirendra Singh And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anshu Chaudhary AND Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3190 of 2018 Appellant :- Rajveer Singh Respondent :- Smt. Tarannum And 9 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anshu Chaudhary AND Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3191 of 2018 Appellant :- Rajveer Singh Respondent :- Shan Mohammad And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anshu Chaudhary AND Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3192 of 2018 Appellant :- Rajveer Singh Respondent :- Fateh Mohammad And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anshu Chaudhary
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
All four appeals are arising out of same accident which had taken place on 07.03.2016 in which the persons namely Nathu Singh (MACT No. 142 of 2016), Riyajuddin (MACT No.153 of 2016) and Atta Mohammad (MACT No.155 of 2016) sustained serious injuries and all of them died where as one Shan Mohammad (MACT No.154 of 2016) has sustained serious injuries.
Since all the aforesaid appeals are decided by the Tribunal by common judgement and order, the same are decided by common order.
Heard Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that admittedly, on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was not registered but subsequently on 18.01.2018, the vehicle in question was got registered with RTO and a sum of Rs.19,800/- was paid by the appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle.
The claim of the appellant is that since the fitness certificate has been granted by the concerned RTO, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that on the date of occurrence the vehicle in question was not registered has no value.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the order of the Tribunal dated 23.04.2018, I find no error in the impugned order of the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has decided the issue No.6 which is related to the registration of Marshall Jeep bearing registration no. U.P.82C 7257 owned by the appellant. Admittedly, the said Marshall Jeep was not registered with the Regional Transport Office (RTO) concerned and it is only claimed that fitness certificate has been issued in favour of the said vehicle.
Another argument is advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that even assuming without admitting the vehicle in question was not registered but since the fitness certificate was issued in its favour, the same is therefore permissible to ply.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in any view of the matter, the vehicle in question was insured by the Insurance Company and since it was insured, therefore, the liability should have been fastened on the Insurance Company.
This aspect has been considered and dealt with by the Tribunal and Tribunal has recorded its finding that since the vehicle in question was not registered nor its registration was renewed on the date of occurrence, the issue no.6 should have been decided against the owner of the vehicle.
In this regard, it is observed by this Court that this is duty of the Insurance Company while issuing an insurance cover note that whether the vehicle is registered with the RTO or not. Issuance of fitness certificate is not sufficient to issue a cover note or to insure the vehicle.
To this extent, this Court held that there is negligence on the part of the Insurance Company, however, since the fact of the present case reveals that vehicle was not registered and the Tribunal has considered this issue while allowing the claim of the claimants and the injured person, I have no option but to dismiss these appeals.
In view of the aforesaid, all the appeals are dismissed.
Statutory amount, if any, deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal within two weeks for adjustment towards the deposit to be made by the appellant for payment to the claimants and the order of the Tribunal must be complied with within 30 days from today.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 A.Kr.*