FAO No.2910 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.2910 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.05.2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Smt. Satya Devi alias Naseeb Kaur and Ors. ... Respondents 2. FAO No.2911 of 2004 (O&M) National Insurance Company Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Smt. Satya Devi alias Naseeb Kaur and Ors. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Punjab. Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, for the respondent-driver. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The appeals are filed by the Insurance Company denying that the vehicle involved in the accident had been insured with the Insurance Company. The accident had resulted in death to Suraj Bhan and the legal representatives of the claimants. The contention in the petition was that a car bearing registration No.HR-20-2533 was involved in the accident. It was sought to be contended that this number was merely a temporary registration number and the registration number for the vehicle was HR-31B-6878. The FAO No.2910 of 2004 (O&M) -2- policy of insurance made a reference to HR-31B-6878. The Tribunal made the Insurance Company liable by finding that what was stated in the FIR referring to the offending vehicle as HR-20-2533 was the very same vehicle for which a policy of insurance had been taken. 2. Since the Insurance Company was denying that the vehicle involved in the accident was not the vehicle which had been insured with them, to clear the doubt and to secure the best evidence available, I had summoned the attendance of the first respondent, who was cited as a driver of the car at the relevant time as well as the Police Officer who had registered FIR No.26 at the relevant time of the accident on 24.01.2002. After the evidence of these two witnesses, who were examined and cross-examined by the insurer, the Insurance Company sought a permission to examine the Manager, Orion Motor Pvt. Ltd. to rebut the contention that the alleged offending vehicle had not been sold by them with the registration number, which was found in the FIR. 3. The evidence brought through the witnesses are significant and they have thrown considerable light to clear the air of suspicion. Anil Kumar, who is arrayed as the driver of the vehicle, gave evidence to the effect that he knew the owner of the car No.HR-31B-6878, Shobha Chand. He stated that he went along with Shobha Chand and took delivery from Orion Motors. He has stated that he was wrongly implicated by the police as the driver when the real driver was Suresh. He gave evidence to the effect that the vehicle purchased by his friend, originally bore a temporary registration No.HR-20- 2533. He has also stated that a criminal case, lodged against him, was dismissed. He has also further stated that Shobha Chand himself told him that the vehicle which he has purchased had been involved in an accident that FAO No.2910 of 2004 (O&M) -3- caused a death of a person. The Police Officer Dharam Chand gave evidence to the effect that he was the ASI at Police Station Sadar when the FIR had been registered. He said that the complaint was lodged by one Ram Niwas on the same date mentioning the registration number as HR-20-2533. He also stated that the vehicle was seized soon after and at that time he noticed that registration No.HR-20-2533 was written on yellow paper and not painted on any number plate. He had also noted chassis and engine number. The attempt was, therefore, to show that if it had been a permanent registration number, it would have been painted on a number plate and what was seen on yellow paper was a temporary registration number. His suggestion to the Police was that HR-20-2533 was a registration number of a scooter and not of a car. 4. The Insurance Company that wanted to show that the new car which was said to have been involved in the accident and which was said to have been purchased by Shobha Chand from Orion Motors Pvt. Ltd. had not been really sold by them and the Insurance Company availed an opportunity to produce the evidence of Orion Motors Pvt. Ltd. The witness gave evidence to the effect that he would not be in a position to say whether any vehicle sold with a temporary registration No.HR-20-2533 had been sold and that their records had all been burnt. The witness clarified that as a dealer they would issue a temporary registration number of a new vehicle upto 2001 and after 09.01.2001 it used to be given by the State Transport authorities. In the cross- examination by the owner of the vehicle, a copy was confronted to the witnesses that a sale certificate had been issued on 23.11.2001 and a delivery had been made to one Shobha Chand that contained reference to the chassis and engine number which tallied with the vehicle which was shown as having FAO No.2910 of 2004 (O&M) -4- been involved in the accident. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the person who was shown as a driver had admitted that he was not himself the driver. Presently, the issue is not who was the driver but the question is whether the particular vehicle that had been insured with the Insurance Company was involved in the accident or not. The correlation obtained through the evidence of Anil Kumar as a person who gone with the owner for purchasing a new Santro car and his friend giving statement to him that the new car had been involved in the accident. If this evidence were be discarded, as contended by the Insurer, the evidence of the police that he had seen the car and the vehicle that caused the accident had a temporary registration number and not painted on a number plate. A copy of the delivery note marked in the cross-examination of the Manager of Orion Motors Pvt. Ltd. also shows that a vehicle had been sold to the insured with the particulars of chassis and engine number that tallied with the vehicle involved in the accident and which had been seized by the police. Involvement of the vehicle as one insured with the Insurance Company was well established and the finding recorded to that extent by the Tribunal requires to be confirmed. The appeals by the Insurance Company are, therefore, dismissed and the awards passed in relation to the accident are confirmed. MAY 04, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE