yg ^ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SinaieBench : Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, A Writ PetLtion (ClNo.SeSS of 2007 ICICI Lombard Genera! Insurance Company Ltd. Kurla Bandra Complex (West), iVIumbai, Through - Branch Office, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) 1. Smt Meera Dei Sinah Aged about 52 years, Wd/o Late Shri Rajeshwar Slngh 2. Yashwendra Pratap Singh (Minor) Aged about 16 years, Adopted Son Late Shri Dhiraj Singh, Through Natura! guardian Mother Smt. Meera Devi Singh, Wd/o Late Shri Rajeshwar Singh Respondent No.1 & 2 are R/o Viilage, Korhabhat, Tehsil-Pamagarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) At present Rlo Qr.No.M-1046, Adarsh Nagar Kusmunda, Tehsil-Ka^hora, Distt.Korba (CG) 3. Naresh Kumar Tandon Aged about 24 years, S/o Shri Sita Ram Tandon, R/o Viliage Mehu, Tehsit & Police Station - Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa (CG) Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitytion of India Present : Shri Kishore Bhaduri v/ith Shri Rahu! Mishra, counsei for the petltioner. Shri Vimiesh bajpai, counse! for respondents No.1&2. Shri Gurudev I. Sharan, counsei for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15'" November, 2007) Heard on I.A. No.2 fortaking documents on record. 2. Considered and allowed. Documents are taken on record ^ 3. T'nis writ petition is being disposed of finally, at the stage of admission, with the consent of the parties. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.7.2007 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora (CG) in claim case No.81/2006, whereby an appiication under Order-6 Rule- 17 read withSection 151 of C.P.C. filed by the company for withdrawing its admisslons made statement regarding the offsnding vehicie being covered under the policy of insurance, was rejected. 5. The respondents No.1&2/ciaimants had, in the appiication under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle, 1988 mentioned that the offending vehicle i.e. tractor trolley bearing registration No.CG.11- A/1639 and CG.11-A/1640 was insured by the petitioner herein undsr the policy No.3001/131 61/06/0904. The insurance company in paragraph-6 of its written statement vide Annexure.P-3, admitted that the tractor and trolley were insured under the abovementioned poticy of insurance on the date of accident. After the closure of the evidence by the claimants, the petitioner/insurance company filed an application under Order-6 Rule-17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. (Annexure.P-6) for withdrawlng the sald admissions made in para 6 of the written statement on the foiiowing grounds:- 3. that, the policy of insurance filed by the owner was a forged document. that, the admissions made by the petitioner in para 6 of the written statement was made without verifylng the genuineness of the xerox copy of the policy of insurance filed in the ciaims case. that, the xerox copy of the policy of insurance filed In the case reveals that a revenue stamp was affixed on the policy whereas revenue stamp is never affixed on insurance poiicy under the Insurance Act. © 1 4. that, on perusal of xerox copy with the original format ofthe policy, it transpired that the poticy was a forged document. 5. that, the policy No. 3001/1310961/06/0904 mentioned in the policy did not pertain to the petitioner/insurance company and 6. that, on the table showing the premium, instead of the word "computation" the word "company" is seen which shows that the xerox copy was prepared on a computer. 6. Learned M.A.C.T. rejected the application under Order-6 Rule- 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. on the sole ground that the insurance company could not be permitted to wlthdraw the admissions made by it in the written statement at such a late stage. 7. Learned counse! for the petitioner/insurance company urged that the order passed by the learned M.A.C.T. does not show conscious application of mind to any of ths grounds urged by the petitioner/insurance company in its application under Order-6 Rule 17 read withSection 151 of C.P.C. He further urged thai the Farmer package policy js never issued by the petitioner/insurance company. 8. Learned counse! for respondent.S/owner opposed the appilcation and prayed that the insurance company cou!d not be allowed to withdraw the admissions made bv it in the v/ritten '^ statement filed afier due verification. He placed reliance on M/s Modi So'snnina. & Weavina Mills Co. Lfd. and another Vs. M/s Ladha Ram & Co. AiR 1977 Supreme Court 880 in support of his contentions. 9. Having heard the rival submisstons, 1 have perused the impugned order dated 28.7.2007. It would be wholiy unjust to fasten !iabi!ity on the insurance company where the insurance company is abte to produce material before fhe Court to show that the policy of insuranee produced by the owner is a forged document and v/as never issued by the insurance company. The impugned order does not show conscious application of mind by the M.A.C.T. on any of the Priya grounds raised by the petitioner/insurance company in its appiication under Order-6 Ru!e -17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. 10. Under these circumstances, interest ofjustice wouid be sen/ed jf the impugned order is set aside and a direction is given to the M.A.C.T. to pass a speaking and a weti reasoned order after considering a!! the grounds raised by the insurance company in its application under Order-6 Rute-17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. 11. In view of the above, ths petition stands disposed of. ^^ ^ ^^ ^^^