1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.293 OF 1995 United Assurance Co. Ltd. having its registered office at Nanded, (Through its Manager at Nanded. .... APPELLANT. VERSUS 1) Ananda Mahadu Baviskar, Age-45 years, 2) Suresh Ananda Baviskar, Age-20 years, 3) Bahinabai Ananda Baviskar, Age-12 years, 4) Vilas Ananda Baviskar, Age-7 years, All R/o- Kusumba, Tq. & Dist-Jalgaon. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are minors, through their natural guardian Father Ananda Mahadu Baviskar. 5) Chalparsingh Mahendrasingh, Occu:Transport business, R/o-Gurudwara Gate No.3, Sadhupura, Nanded, Dist-Nanded, 2 6) Gurumitsingh Mahendrasingh, Occu:Driver, R/o-Gurudwara Gate No.3, Nanded, Dist-Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS. ... Mr. D.V. Soman Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. R.L. Chintalwar Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. First Appeal dismissed against Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as per order dated 13/10/2000. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 25TH JUNE, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Present First Appeal arises out of Judgment and award dated 29th April, 1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.61 of 1986. The Appellant is original opponent No.3 - Insurance Company and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are original Petitioners - claimants. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2. Present First Appeal dismissed against Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as per order dated 13th October, 2000. 3 2. The present First Appeal filed by the Appellants on the ground that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the Appellants are liable to pay the compensation to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 though the vehicle which was involved in the accident was not insured with the Appellants. The Appellants submit that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the vehicle was not insured and there were no positive particulars of insurance produced in the Court and therefore the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the Appellants are liable to pay the compensation. The Appellants further raised objection to the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal failed to consider that the truck driver was not holding valid driving license and was not conversant with the driving. Because of breach of the conditions of the policy on the part of the owner of the vehicle, the Appellants are not liable to pay any compensation to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 3. A few facts of the present case are as under: 4 . On 21st October, 1985 the accident took place in which the mother of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 expired. The accident took place on the Jalgaon- Kusumba road on 21st October, 1985 at about 9 a.m. It is the case of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that deceased Laxmibai was standing near S.T. Bus stand at the corner of the road of village Kusumba with the corns of Jowar in a bag. At that time the truck bearing No.MTB 7585 came in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to Laxmibai. In that accident, Laxmibai died on the spot. Thereafter the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed Claim Petition No.61 of 1986 in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon on 21st April, 1986. In the said claim Petition, the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 remained absent and therefore the said Petition was decided ex-parte against them. The Appellants herein above filed their written statement dated 28th August, 1986 and raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the Claim Petition against them on the ground that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have not filled in particulars along with application about insurance policy of the Appellants. It is their case that after 5 taking diligent search in the office, they could not find a copy of any other document of the policy. It is the case of the Appellants that the vehicle No.MTB 7585 involved in the accident was not insured with them and therefore they are not liable to pay any compensation to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 3. Considering the evidence on record and deposition of claimants, the Tribunal passed Judgment and award dated 29th April, 1995 holding that Respondent Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Petition till realization from the Appellants as well as Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the Appellants is that Respondent Nos.1 to 4 failed to produce any cogent document to show that the said truck was insured with the Appellants on the day when accident took place i.e. 21st October, 1985. He submitted that the Tribunal relied on certificate dated 25th January, 1994, Exhibit 50, issued by 6 Assistant Regional Transport office Nanded. He submitted that it is nowhere stated in the said certificate that under which provision of the Motor Vehicles Act the said certificate was issued by the R.T.O. He further submitted that the said certificate was not proved by calling any officer from the office of R.T.O. and therefore, the said certificate was not admissible in evidence. He further submitted that in view of Section 101 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden was on Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to prove the contents and genuineness of the document Exhibit 50 i.e. certificate issued by the R.T.O. office. In view of these submissions, learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that Respondent Nos.1 to 4 failed to adduce any cogent evidence to show that the truck involved in the accident was duly insured with the Appellants. 5. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 states that they produced Exhibit 50 which is the certificate issued by the R.T.O. office. He further submitted that the said document was duly exhibited by the Tribunal being 7 public document. At the time of exhibiting the said document, the Appellant herein above did not raise any objection. Therefore the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 discharged their burden by producing the certificate issued by the R.T.O. Office. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 relied on the Judgment in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Jugal Kishre and others, reported in T.A.C. (1950-95) S.C. Page 179. In this Authority, the Apex Court held that in all cases where the insurance company concerned wishes to take a defence in a claim petition that its liability is not in excess of statutory liability, then it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 mainly relied on Para 10 of the Judgment, which reads as under: "10. Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to refer to the attitude often adopted by the Insurance Companies, as was adopted even in this case, of not filing a copy of the policy before the Tribunal and even 8 before the High Court in appeal. In this connection what is of significance is that the claimants for compensation under the Act are invariably not possessed of either the policy or a copy thereof. This Court has consistently emphasised that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the cause to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant who are under an obligation to act fairly. In many cases even the owner of the vehicle for reasons known to him does not choose to produce the policy or a copy thereof. We accordingly wish to emphasise that in all such cases where the Insurance Company concerned wishes to take a defence in a claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. Even in the instant case had it been done so at the appropriate stage necessity of approaching this Court in civil appeal 9 would in all probability have been avoided. Filing a copy of the policy, therefore, not only cuts short avoidable litigation but also helps the court in doing justice between the parties. The obligation on the part of th3 State or its instrumentalities to act fairly can never be over- emphasised." 6. It is to be noted that as per Section 147(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if the insurance policy is not issued by the company within particular time, the insurer, within seven days of the expiry of the period of validity of cover note, can intimate to the office of R.T.O. where the vehicle is registered, so that R.T.O. office can take note of the same. Section 147 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: "(4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the 10 cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe." 7. It is clear that the said certificate Exhibit 50 issued by the R.T.O. office on the basis of entry made in their register. Exhibit 50 is the certificate issued by the public office i.e. R.T.O. office and therefore in view of Section 74 and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, document does not require any evidence for its proof. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants relied on the Authority in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Zaverben Harilal Dedhia and others, reported in 2009 (1) ALL M.R. Page 28. In this Authority, the Bombay High Court held that every presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a rebuttable presumption and mere entry in R.T.O. book referring to name of an insurance company as the insurer would not establish the fact that the vehicle in question was in fact insured with it. Learned counsel for the Appellants mainly relied on Para 11 and 12 of the said Judgment, 11 which read as under: "11. Relying upon the provisions of section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Tribunal has held that the entries made in the RTO records are presumed to be correct and has therefore held that the truck was insured with the appellant on the date of incident. The Tribunal however failed to see that every presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act is a rebuttable presumption. In the present case, the presumption was rebutted by the cross- examination of P.W.2 who admitted that entries in the RTO records were made only on the basis of 'AT Form' submitted by the respondent no.4 without verifying the insurance policy and without cross checking with the insurance company. The presumption was doubly rebutted by a positive evidence of the administrative officer of the appellant who stated on oath that the truck was not insured with the appellant. 12. In Oriental Fire & Insurance Company Limited vs. Dr. C.R. Purohit & Ors. - 1 (1999) ACC 138, a Division Bench of this Court has held that a mere 12 entry in the RTO book referring to the name of an insurance company as the insurer would not establish the fact that the vehicle in qu4estion was in fact insured with it. The present case is stronger wherein the presumption, if any, was rebutted by positive evidence of the officer of the insurance company that the truck was not so insured." 8. It is the duty of the insurance company to produce some cogent evidence on record to show that the certificate issued by the R.T.O. office or the entry in the R.T.O. book is not correct. In the present case though the Appellants filed their written statement before the Tribunal, no one entered into the Witness Box to prove their case and the presumption of correctness of the entry in the public document Exhibit 50 has not been rebutted. Therefore, the Authority relied on by the learned counsel for the Appellant, in my opinion, is not helpful to the Appellants. 9. In view of these facts, I hold that there is no substance in the submission of the Appellant that the truck involved in the accident which took place on 13 21st October, 1985 was not duly insured with them. 10. The next point raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the Respondents failed to produce any cogent evidence to show that the deceased Laxmibai was earning a sum of Rs.300/- to 400/- per month. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Petition till realization. There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of Sunrise or the splendor of the Stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the mere baffling when the deceased is a non-earning person or daily wages worker. Because it is difficult for claimant to produce any documentary evidence to justify the same. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of 14 guesswork. Respondent No.2 entered into the witness box and categorically stated that his mother used to earn a sum of Rs.15/- per day. He further stated that his mother also used to work with one Patil. From that work the deceased used to get a sum of Rs.6/- per day. In any case, the Tribunal has taken minimum amount as per month earning of deceased Laxmibai and awarded only a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the claimants, which cannot be said to be excessive. 11. Considering the evidence on record and after going through the Record and Proceedings of the present case, I do not find any substance in the present First Appeal and the same is dismissed with costs. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/JUN90/fa293.95