- 1 - S.B.C.M.A.No.615 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 615 of 1997 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COM. V/S RATEN BAI Date of Judgment : 16.12.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. Mr. RK MEHTA, for the appellant Mr. BHARAT SHRIMALI for Mr.SHAMBHOO SINGH, for the respondent BY THE COURT: This appeal is filed by the insurer seeking to challenge the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur. The question involved is only about the liability of the insurer, therefore, I need not go into the other aspect of the matter. On the aspect of the liability of insurer, learned Tribunal has discussed the matter in para No.9 onwards, and has considered the evidence of D.W.1 Ranjeet Singh, who has deposed that the vehicle was not insured - 2 - S.B.C.M.A.No.615 of 1997 with them on 11.9.1989, was but insured for the period 14.9.1989 to 13.9.1990. However, the witness had admitted the cover note, Ex.4, to have been issued by the Development Officer, Mr. M.K. Trivedi, and it was purported to have been issued on 10.9.89, while in the office copy, it is mentioned to be issued on 14.9.89. The learned Tribunal, then, in para 10 has held, that the witness had admitted that the Development Officer Mr. M.K. Trivedi has prepared the cover note on 10.9.89, Ex.4, which specifically recites the period of insurance to be 10.9.89 to 9.9.90, and copy of the office copy has not been produced. No report of any inquiry, said to have been got conducted by the company departmentally, has been produced either, as such, it has been found, that as on the date of accident, the vehicle was insured. The accident in the present case is alleged to have occurred at 6.00 PM on 11.9.89. A look at Ex.4, the cover note, does clearly show, that it is issued on 10.9.89, and there are no over-writings or erasers in the date. In this background, a look at the statement of Ranjeet Singh, does clearly show, that he has admitted the cover note to have been issued by his company, by the Development Officer Shri M.K. Trivedi. He has also deposed that departmental inquiry was conducted with respect to Ex.4, however, in cross-examination he has admitted, that on 10.9.89 Shri M.K. Trivedi was Development Officer in the - 3 - S.B.C.M.A.No.615 of 1997 company, and Ex.4 is prepared by him. He has admitted the signature of Shri M.K. Trivedi at A to B, and all entries to be made by him. He was asked, as to how many cover notices were issued before and after 10.1.89, to which he gave out to have not brought any record. He has also admitted, that Shri Trivedi has died, and after his death, all service/terminal benefits have been given to his legal representatives. He has also admitted, that in the event of any employee being delinquent, the terminal benefits are withheld, except Provident Fund. Thus, in my view, except the bald word of mouth by Ranjeet Singh, there is no material on record, to even suspect, that Ex.4 was not issued on 10.9.89, and was issued on any other subsequent date. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error in the finding of the learned Tribunal, about the vehicle being insured on the date of accident. Thus, the appeal has no force and is dismissed. (N.P.GUPTA ),J. /tarun/