1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.414 of 2007 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Akharaghat Road, Muzaffarpur. …Opposite Party no.3- Petitioner verus 1. Chinta Devi, D/o late Shivji Dubey, resident of village Dubauli, P.S. Behiya, District Bhojpur, C/o Sushil Kumar Ojha, village Khabra, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur. …Applicant-Opposite Party. 2. Rajendra Rai, son of Baleshwar Rai 3. Lalu Mahto, son of Bhaik Narayan Mahto, Both resident of Mohalla Kurji, P.S. Digha, Distt. Patna. ….O.Ps. no.1 & 2-Opposite parties. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.C. L. Das, Advocate. For Opp. Party no.1: M/s.Yugal Kishore and Arvind Kumar, Advocates. -------- 08/ 13.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the petitioner, who was opposite party no.3 in Motor Vehicle Claims Case No. 28 of 1997 and has challenged order dated 12.06.2006, by which the learned Ist Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur allowed the said case and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. 3. The said case was filed by opposite party no.1, who was the daughter of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased had no son and had only three daughters, including opposite party no.1 and at the time of filing of the case opposite party no.1 was unmarried. The said case was contested by the petitioner, who was opposite party no.3, whereas opposite parties no.2 and 3, who were opposite parties no.1 and 2 in the 2 court below, did not appear. 4. The learned court below after considering the pleadings and evidence of both the parties and also appreciating the specific provisions of law allowed the said claim case by its impugned order dated 03.06.2006. 5. Against the aforesaid order, the United India Insurance Company ( petitioner ) has filed the instant civil revision raising following issues :- (a) All the heirs of the deceased are married daughters living separately; (b)The claim case was bad for non-joinder of the remaining two daughters as claim case was filed by only one of the daughters. (c) The liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the term of insurance but here in the instant case premium was paid after the accident. (d) The matter has been referred to the Vigilance, where it is still pending as fraud has been detected about the deceased having died prior to the deposit of the premium money. 6. So far issues no. (a) and (b) are concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased had no son and had only three daughters, out of whom the claimant (opposite party no.1) was unmarried at the time of filing of the claim case. Furthermore, the law is well-settled that one of the heirs and legal representatives can raise the claim and the amount payable has to be distributed among all the persons, who are entitled to receive the compensation. Furthermore, the daughters being the heirs are legally entitled to claim compensation in view of the 3 specific provisions of law regarding insurance. In the said circumstances, the aforesaid two issues taken by the petitioner have no substance. 7. So far issues no. (c) and (d) raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, it is quite apparent that the date of accident is 18.12.1996 at 12.15 hours and coverage of the insurance was also from the said date 18.12.1996 as per the cover-note issued by the Insurance Company itself dated 19.12.1996. 8. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the said points but he has not produced any chit of paper to show that either the premium was deposited after the accident or the coverage of insurance was started after the accident had taken place. No such chit of paper was produced either in the trial court or in this court although two years have passed since the filing of the instant civil revision. 9. In the said circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in holding that the claimant was entitled to compensation as the insurance was applicable when the accident had taken place. 10. So far the matter regarding vigilance case is concerned that would not affect the proceeding of the claim case as it has to be decided on the materials produced before that court and will not be dependent on the case being pending before the Vigilance. 11. So far the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 4 case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vrs. Rajendra Singh and others, reported in (2000) 3 S.C.C. 581 is concerned, it has been held that the court, after coming to know about fraud, has to decide the matter as per the decision with regard to fraud. But here in the instant case, there was no material at all before the learned court below to assume that a fraud was committed by the claimant or by the owner of the vehicle, who had not even appeared in the trial court. Thus, it was the duty of the Insurance Company, which was the custodian of the documents regarding insurance, to produce such documents but having failed to produce such documents, the learned court below had no option but to pass the impugned order. 12. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )