•-e- J.Mfe I'Mlfi. S,, .JBliE JVi^tt b^pi&tat^,^ Zt?lij^^t;|t*Stal?i nS. . -€-^ ifclV-lMlfe 'JBlfi A |:M1^ B&UB^ IM^ -U.&S ^i-^aS sjap.fiLUa *UJi 6 fite ^i sj.ti^ jamiLte jja^^iaSfaAiE o£ styjxui <Mfi II Ae sj.atf fiau.tt lyy. JS.uijS ^SH •ibyjtisll- "Mfi si SDe 4Nfi M^ ' ^USItltt *&i. .U»tlJ 'y-^SMllS My-K •ji: 'a SJ-iay.a Jjaty- ^.yaa -ByiSB )'Kuih^ti.^(bJTB CB1B 61 Siffi W^- M.1^1^4 ofiiJ.aty.^sS o£ [it.'a g J.^ft Jjak^ _t>(j^9iii fi^pay .uitdii^ii yii&iy. 'MUi zs Xts *y4B toito^a^tiA tyfa siisi>^3 ^uh-ija ^—?; .9—8 / -<T -^> ^ ,.<^-^ ..^*?'° ^<.0'» -£r w&S^- ^ -s -^ ^f ^s^ |nlt-(^llt!>lUP 'TfB g J-E>^ itetey. j-i^-aa ^aM 'ifiMi.tLUt yUBty. 'Ml£ 82 &LlE'~*y;4^ &(U^Ubl'ltt*t^ UJH Slfcil htlft V^(A a^j. •it-s 1 lfii4.& j-Bisy. fi jayiati 4,S,,i.isi jj^s> B&^MJ-a-jSjstt fc'yj.ii S3tt!yj- U*trtltl t?--^(.hft| MilEl^ -^ tatt-&iy.J£^ lfl}»-(j&ibi>mp *£-AKr^ aft^lbl;^ JJSJLteyiK WOZ/ ^h^ Afafc •A*M& ? •it'S 1 JiTit?! M&J. *hUIJttte± te£ikfcyUS &VAIlt 8861.3^a^^-i3^£^lt*,tRfi^ffiteyaffi jt'ag IM£ Ayffeiin lyisy. AVtj&i& Myiafi inhi,?it-i,),Riu iai? fe^y.u 4&1AUA lyijs WJs^S tU.fate^ &Sfi 'MU S<i fitffi M6ifi£ Ml-te i^ / II S oii os | ita.i^a IM^. 1^4$ .B^?R 1&AJA j£lR 'JLliAf Mys 'JlDfi^ J±^fXB*^Uaai,VJJ& 'Ml.fiKtUte MMtl.tLE feiaaj.je 'J-im S£ Slffi MLfeK&fclta Xl.flS fity. -01 " 2 iRfi l-altt^ t&^JJslE " :;'. tntt-yatb »1UP ^ S oit ae g i&sp IWj. ±iya2Au^sB'iTiui h^r ^i^^. *MUi tiZ £lfeMIM^ Sai& 3U^ JU^tt -^& oit oa g JL&4£ jj^y. jjL(;&a&*3U A£ai.-t4k AiBU&fc,j. 'jaiy ae Sxie (J.LB*)tUf? Bbli.l|t Ota-i Uj^ eibllialt JQShJ^ ite y-s ^ ^s ^. jAyjj.&u; e J^ <T-Mte^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. Appellant Respondents M.A.No. 449 OF 2004 National Insurance Company Ltd. Korba (CG) Vs Smt. Pushpabai and others iil Present: Mr. Srikumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.R. Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant/insurance company. Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Advocate for respondents No. 1,2,4,5 & 6 to 9. ORDER (oral) (Passed on23 November, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common award dated 5.1.2004 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (in short "the Tribunal") in Claim Cases No. 1/03 and 100/02, insofar as it relates to fastening of liability upon the appellant/insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants in Claim Case No.100/02. 2; Brief facts^oyhe case, as per averments made in the claim petition, are that on 10.11.2000 at about 22:40 hours Bhagwat Prasad Soni was going to his residence at Village: Gopalpur from Korba by Luna bearing Reg.No. MOL/755. At that time, he was accompanied by his friend Laxman Singh as a pillion rider. When they reached near (-- -I- ~i^y.-^- •M^si^.-i^'i£-id--.;-:t^- ui -/fr6l7'9 'sy pue ZO/OOI'ON SSBQ Luieioui SIUBLUIBIO 941 ^o jnoAei "! -/fr90'09'£'syjo uoiiesueduoo \B}O} e peiuej6 pjeMe peuBndLui eqi Aq 'i! ajo^sq psonppe^eouepiAe eqi p Auiinjos esop jsye pue seiijed SAipedsej aqi JQ^ issunoo Buueeq jsye 'ieunqui paujeei •i? •**. •pJBMB UOLULUOO B Aq S9SEO siujep 8i|i q^oq pspioep leunqui SLUIBIO peujeei eqi 'sjo^ejeqi 'tuepiooe eLues eq} }Q )no ssoje seseo sujrep 94} qpq eouis 'lBMSier jeujn^Aiys OI'ON luopuodsaj Aq psuMO SEM sioiqaA Buipuayo eqi leqi p9}eis 9Aeq siueiuiep 94) zo/OOl'°N SSBQ LUIBIO ui se9J9L|M '|eMBj6v leijpeqyo 1,'ON luspuodsej Aq peuMoseM eioiyeA Ouipueyo eq} ieqi peieis seq qBuig ueLuxe"] pojnfui 'CO/IO'ON SSBO UJIBIQ u| -eo/1. 'ON sseo ujieio SB pajeisiBsj SBM qoiqM '-/OOS'ZZ'OZ'sy lo uoiiesusdLuoo |E(0} E JO^ 9SEO LUIEIO e p9|ij OS|E q6ui9 UBLUXB-I pajnfui •e •spesq snouEA jspun luog pesejd tEMOeqg p qieep 94} isuieOe -/OOQ'09' IZ'sy p uoitBsuedLuoo |BtO} e JQ^ 9861. 'PV S9|3!4SA J°»°l/\l 941 ^o 991. uoipss jspun uoi^ed Luiep B peiy 'siuepuedep/sjieq |B63| siq Buisq 'psseeoep eqi jo jsqiojq pue uejp|!i<o 'jetsis 'jsqtOLU 'MOpiMsje oqM 'siueiuieio 941 'sjojejeqi -luepiooe eftoqe 941 ui peuieisns seunfui sqi 01 psqLunoons iuos pesejd IBMBeLig 'Bqjo» 'ietidsoH psppsg-OO I. "! luaiuieejt jo asjnoo ai|} 6uuna 'saunfu! |euj8tU! se ||aM se spueq pue s6a|'peeq SI.L) JSAO seynfui snoAauB pauieisns luog pesejd leMBeqg seajeqM 'ajnioejj peuieisns eq pue psqsmo SBM L|BUIS .UBLUXB~| p BS| }qBu LioiqM }Q iinssj e se 'eun-) pies aqi peqsep 'jeuueuj tueBiiBsu pue qsej e ui (..epiqsA euipusyo eqi,, se 0} pejjaiaj jeueuiejeii) gzzo/MSZ -'d'M 'ON 'Bsy Buuesq JBQ leij BuiAup Aq iBMSier jeun^Aiqs OI.'ON tuspuodssj 'eqjo>i 'je6eN vodsueji 'Aou96e ueqpuex <^ s^i.^,, A ~'"1l- ^"'S'SSi ''wg'a Y ^--J" k':-:'i.1R" ;.l.tfeil •s.-:? -.f^: ^ favour of injured Laxman Singh, fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant/insurance company. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has contended that the alleged cover note No. 113 was neither issued from the office of appellant/insurance company, nor it is in the prescribed format. Shri B.K. Xess, Development Officer of the appellant/insurance company, who had issued the said cover note No.113, was not authorized to issue cover notes on behalf of the insurance company as on account of his misconduct and involvement in several illegal activities, the power to issue cover notes on behalf of the insurance company was withdrawn from him on 22.5,1992 and in this regard, information was got published in the local newspapers for general public. Shri B.L. Xess was suspended on 2.12.1999 and departmental enquiry was initiated against him thereafter. On 9.2.2001, an FIR was also lodged against Shri B.L. Xess in Police Station: Ambikapur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 409 ofthe IPC. 7. It has been further contended that in fact, insurance of the offending vehicle was done after the date of accident i.e. 10.11.2000 for a period of one-'year from 4.12.2000 and in this regard, cover note ^ f No.214576 was issued. He Jias also contended that the premium amount has also not been received by the insurance company against cover note No-113. From 1997 to 2000, the insurance company had issued cover notes bearing six digits, whereas the .. cover note in question bears three digits, which itself proves that the Sl.. '^ "^ ^ same was fake and forged. As such, the insurance company has been wrongly saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the claimants by the claims Tribunal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned award. -» 9. It is not in dispute that B.L. Xess was the Development Officer of appellant/insurance company and as such, was competent and authorized to issue cover notes. Photocopy of the cover note No.113 dated 15.11.1999 has been filed by respondent No.10 Shivkumar Jaiswal (DW-2), which has been marked as Ex.D/1C. From perusal of the same, it js clear that the period of insurance was from 15.11.1999 to 14.11.2000. The date of accident is 10.11.2000 and as such, the date of accident comes within the coverage period ofthe cover note No.113 dated 15.11.1999. lO.According to learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, the power to issue cover notes of B.L. Xess, Development Officer, was withdrawn long before the date of issuance of cover note No.113 dated 15.11.1999, on 22.5.1992 and he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 2.12.1999. From perusal of the documents available on record, it is clear that though four public notices (photocopies Ex.D/SC to D/11C) were got published in the daily newspapers;by the appellant/insurance company for information to the general public that B.L Xess, Development Officer of the appellant/insurance company, has been put under suspension w.e.f. 2.12.1999, but ajl these public notices have been got published in the newspaper subsequent to the date of issuance of . Jhe covei- note No.113 dated 15.11.1999. Further, as per the -Ft3Ln-^- (3- document available on record, it is clear that the power to issue cover notes of B.L. Xess, Development Officer, was withdrawn on 22.5.1992, however, this fact was not made known to the general public. 11. Theappellant/insurance company has not denied issuance of cover note No. 113 dated 15.11.1999, but has denied the authority of Shri B.L. Xess, Development'Officer, to issue such cover notes. On the date when the appellant/insurance company adduced evidence before the Tribunal, Shri B.L. Xess, Development Officer, although under suspension, was, at that time, in the employment of the appellant/insurance company, who was the best witness to depose whether the said cover note No. 113 dated 15.11.1999 was issued by him or not, but the appellant/insurance company did not care to examine him, It is unbelievable that the cover note is issued without receiving the premium amount. There is no prohibition in paying the premium amount in cash to the authorized ofRcer and to get a cover note issued. As such, the contention of the appellant/insurance company that it has not received any premium amount is not acceptable. Whether B.L. Xess, Development Officer, was authorized on 15.11.1999 to issue cover note or not, is a matter -between the insurance company and its officer, and the general public/claimants cannot be made to suffer on account of the •s / . misdeeds of the officers of the appellant/insurance company, as has been held by the High Court of Allahabad in the matters of United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh Singh and others, reported in 1995 ACJ 657. —FT^pv— — -^ _. in . ... . , .,, ^ 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned claims Tribunal has rightly held the appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation to the claimants on the basis of cover note jssued by its agent on behalf of the insurance company. We find no illegality orinfirmity in the impugned award and the same deserves to be affirmed. However, if the insurance company so feels, it can recover^the amount of compensation from the delinquent agent Shri B.L. Xess, Development Officer. 13. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 14. No order as to cost?. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge •-'<, Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge lliiUi _tn -i^-t/^r^ i A4n> ' ;-t-—=-:"..:"T^T~^