IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3039 of 2002 & FAO Nos.3040 to 3059 of 2002 Date of decision:23.07.2010 National Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Purshotam Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the awards arising out of a single accident. The contention of the insurer was, inter alia, that the policy had been taken by exercise of fraud and a specific issue was also framed under issue No.3 -A as follows:- “3-A. Whether policy bearing No.6300101/21/200 in lieu of cover note No.009738 was obtained by fraud by respondents No.2 and 3? OPR-4” 2. The case arose out of a collision between two trucks. The insurer's truck bore registration No.PB10Y-7767. The accident took place on 16.02.2000. The insured relied on a cover note issued prior to the accident on 11.04.2000. The contention of the insurer was that the FAO No.3039 of 2002 - 2 - Development Officer, who had issued the cover note was one Surjit Singh and he had informed by a special communication that the power to issue cover note had been withdrawn. The reference to that is under Ex.R-2 that was on 28.09.2001. It is subsequent to the accident and, therefore, it has no bearing to the authority of Surjit Singh to issue the cover note. The alleged fraud was said to have been unearthed when the claim petition was filed by several persons and at that time, it was realized that the cover note No.009728 issued to the owner of the truck had been issued on 06.03.2000 to a scooter. On further verification, it was reported to have been found that it had been issued to a maruti car. The attempt was therefore to show that Surjit Singh had fabricated a cover note as though it was issued on 11.04.2000 when actually it must have been issued only subsequent to the accident on 16.04.2000. In support of this contention, the Assistant Branch Manager, Mahender Pal was examined, who gave the details referred to above. It was, however, elicited in the cross-examination that the owner of the truck had paid the premium before the accident itself. The manager's inference that it was fabricated was with reference to the fact, the same cover note number had been issued for two vehicles, one for the scooter and another for the truck. A case of fraud could be said to have been established to deny to the insured a right of indemnify only if that the insured had participated in a common design to create a document when the amount itself had not been paid by the owner towards the premium but paid subsequent to the accident and he had managed to secure a cover note containing an antecedent date. One admission in the cross-examination of the Manager FAO No.3039 of 2002 - 3 - that the Development Officer received the premium even prior to the accident itself proves that if there was any fraud committed, it could have been a fraud or laxity on the part of the Development Officer and a case of a concerted action on a common intention to defraud has not been brought through the evidence of the witness. 3. The learned counsel also refers to the fact that the issue relating to the genuineness of the cover note was got investigated departmentally and a report was secured that there had been a practice of fraud by the owner of the truck. A report secured for an office purpose cannot substitute the need for evidence before the Tribunal, at a time, when a specific issue was framed whether the policy had been obtained by practice of fraud by respondents 2 and 3. The fact was not elicited and the Tribunal was, under the circumstances, justified in holding that the owner had no hand in the fraud and made the insurer liable on the basis of the policy of the insurer. 4. All the appeals by the Insurance Company in so far as they seek to exclude itself from liability are, therefore, dismissed. The case would survive for consideration only for examining the claims of persons seeking for enhancement of compensation over the amount awarded by the Tribunal and said to be pending before this Court. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 23.07.2010 sanjeev