1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR First Appeal No. 735/06 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P. Lavande,J DATE : 29th November, 2006 Heard Shri Kalar, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and award dated 20th July, 2006 by which the claim petition filed by the respondent respondent no.1 against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 has been partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to respondent no.1 for the injury suffered by him in an accident which occurred on 11.12.1995. The defence taken by the appellant before the Tribunal was that the in the insurance policy it is mentioned that the policy was effective from 3 p. m. of 11.12.1995 and the accident had occurred on 11.12.1995 at 11.25 a. m.. The Tribunal did not accept the version of the appellant firstly on the ground that the Company had failed to produce proposal form and acceptance and secondly on the ground that the cover note produced by the claimant did not mention that the liability of the Insurance Company was to started from 2 3. 00 p. m. on 11.12.1995. In the absence of specific time in the cover note, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation in respect of the accident which had occurred at 11.25 a. m. on 11.12.1995. 3. Mr. Kalar the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation inasmuch as the Tribunal overlooked that the insurance years policy was effective from 3.00 p. m. of 11.12.1995 and, therefore, the Insurance Company could not have been saddled with the liability to pay compensation. 4. Having considered the submissions made by Mr. Kalar and having perused the impugned Judgment and award as well as the evidence of Surendrasingh examined by the appellant I am unable to accept the submissions made by Mr. Kalar. The Tribunal, in my opinion, was justified in holding against the appellant on account of non production of the proposal form and acceptance. The Tribunal was also justified in placing reliance upon the cover note which does not indicate that the Insurance Policy was effective from 3.00 p. m. on 11.12.1995. This finding, in my opinion, is borne out from the evidence on record. No other view is possible in respect of this finding. Once it is held that the appellant had not 3 established that the liability of the appellant started from 3.00 p. m. on 11.12.1995 the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. Needless to mention that the defences available to the Insurance Company in claim petition are limited under the Motor Vehicle Act. Once the only defence taken by the defendant was rightly negatived, the Tribunal was right in holding the Insurance Company liable along with the owner and driver of the vehicle . 5. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal. Hence, the appeal is summarily rejected. C.A. No. 7421/2006 In view of the dismissal of the appeal nothing survives in this application. Hence, the application stands dismissed as infructuous. Judge patle