FAO NO. 905 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 905 of 2010(O&M) Date of order: 12.10.2011 IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Darshani Devi and another .... Respondents -- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Raj Karan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Chander Shekhar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal of the insurance company against the award dated 01.12.2009 passed by Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition of Darshani Devi, respondent no.1 has been allowed awarding a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to her on account of the injuries suffered by her in the accident, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the award money. The award has been challenged on the ground that the vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. FAO NO. 905 of 2010(O&M) 2 The cover note Ex.R3 proved before the Tribunal is claimed to be fake and an application has been filed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to lead additional evidence of documents Annexures A-3 and A-4. It is claimed in the application that while preparing the appeal, it has come to the notice of the appellant that respondent no.1 had placed on record fake cover note, which was never issued by the applicant. The award has been made on the strength of the same. On coming to know of the said fraud, the appellant made further inquiry and came to realize that the factum of fraud committed by respondent no.1 could be proved from Annexures A-3 and A-4. It is further claimed that the factum of fake cover note was not in the knowledge of the applicant and as such there was no occasion with it to place on record the other related documents, which proved this fact. Claiming that great prejudice would be caused to the appellant in case it is not allowed to adduce additional evidence, prayer has been made for permission to lead additional evidence and bring on record Annexures A-3 and A-4. The application is opposed by the respondents though no formal reply has been filed thereto. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to Annexure A-3, a photocopy of the cover note issued by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for the period from 14.5.2007 to 13.05.2008 in respect of a Tata Indica car bearing Engine No.60978 and Chasis no.57198. He has submitted that once the cover note had been issued with respect to the car in FAO NO. 905 of 2010(O&M) 3 question by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for the period w.e.f. 14.5.2007 to 13.5.2008, there was no reason for the owner of the vehicle to have got the vehicle insured with the appellant for the period from 7.5.2008 to 6.5.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn my attention to Annexure A-4, which is again a cover note of the said vehicle covering the period from 14.5.2008 to 13.5.2009. According to him, it is the document on the basis of which Annexures A-2, Ex.R-4 before the Tribunal, has been issued as the insurance policy covering the vehicle from 14.5.2008 to 13.5.2009. He has submitted that these two documents Annexures A-3 and A-4 clearly show that the document Ex. R-3 is fake. He has submitted that if these documents are not allowed to be produced by way of additional evidence, it would result in miscarriage of justice. He has therefore, prayed for allowing the application. As argued by learned counsel for the respondents, the appellant has not mentioned in the application for additional evidence that Annexure R-3 is a fake document as per its own record. According to him, it is also not mentioned in the application as to how the documents Annexures A-3 and A-4 would be proved on the record because they are not per se admissible. They have submitted that the application has been filed just to delay the payment of compensation and has no merit. Whenever a claim is filed with regard to an accident for compensation and the vehicle is disclosed to be insured with a particular insurance company, notice of the claim petition is given to that insurance FAO NO. 905 of 2010(O&M) 4 company. The insurance company then verifies the fact of insurance of the vehicle with it on the date of accident. I may mention here that the accident is claimed to have taken place on 10.05.2008. It is only after the fact of insurance of the vehicle is found to be correct that the insurance company admits the said fact. Nothing is mentioned in the application to show that the insurance company did not admit the factum of insurance with it on the date of accident. The insurance company need not go to the cover note of other insurance company to prove that the cover note purporting to have been issued on its behalf has been fake. It is the record of appellant that would speak if the insurance of the vehicle was not with it on the given date. There is no reference of such record of the appellant in the application. Annexure A-3, cover note of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is sought to be proved for the reason that for the same period the vehicle would not have been got insured with another insurance company. The document Ex.R-3 has got the cover note number and signatures of authorized signatory. No effort is being made to prove that no such cover note was issued by its authorized signatory, whose signatures appears on the same. All these circumstances show that the insurance company is seeking permission to tender in evidence some documents which cannot be tendered in evidence because the same are not per se admissible. In these circumstances, the application for additional evidence could not be allowed. The same is consequently dismissed. The cover note FAO NO. 905 of 2010(O&M) 5 Ex.R-3 clearly shows that the vehicle was insured on the date of accident with the appellant and, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly held the appellant responsible for indemnifying the insured in its liability to pay compensation to the claimant Darshani Devi. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 12.10.2011 dinesh