Case: National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Tejinder Singh Gujral & Another

1. In these appeals the only common question that arises for consideration is whether the liability of the Insurance Company is limited or unlimited.2. No doubt the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in its order has referred that the policy finds a place on the file of the Court, but that has not been marked as an exhibit nor has anybody spoken about it. Still the Tribunal has held that the liability was limited purporting to rely on the policy.3. The claimants and the insured preferred appeals against the Tribunals order in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. One of the challenges was regarding the extent of liability of the Insurance Company, whether it is limited or unlimited. Before the learned Single Judge, no attempt was made by the Insurance Company to mark/exhibit the insurance policy. On the other hand, it appears that the appellant filed an application seeking permission of the Court to take over all the defence of the insured. That application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court and against that order, LP appeal was filed to the Division Bench. It is seen from the order of the Division Bench that there were two applications filed by the Insurance Company: one for taking over all the defence of the insured and the other for amending the written statement presumably to plead that the liability was limited which was not there earlier. When the application for amendment of the written statement was taken up, the appellant withdrew the same. After all this, for the first time before the Division Bench when the appeal against interim order was taken up for hearing, the appellant seems to have attempted to file the insurance policy to sustain its plea that the liability was limited. However, that was not allowed by the High Court. The LPA was dismissed. Thereafter the learned Single Judge had enhanced the compensation on the appeal filed by the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay the entire amount of the compensation.4. Against that the Insurance Company preferred appeals to the Division Bench, which were also dismissed. 5. This Court also gave one opportunity by order dated 14-3-1988 permitting the Insurance Company to file additional documents within four weeks. We presume that it was at the request of the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company to produce the policy and other documents as additional evidence, that order came to be passed. Even this opportunity was not availed of by the Insurance Company. Till date no application was filed to produce the insurance policy. Under these circumstances and in the absence of the document (insurance policy), we do not think that the question of extent of liability as fixed by the High Court can be challenged.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]5. This Court also gave one opportunity by order datedpermitting the Insurance Company to file additional documents within four weeks. We presume that it was at the request of the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company to produce the policy and other documents as additional evidence, that order came to be passed. Even this opportunity was not availed of by the Insurance Company. Till date no application was filed to produce the insurance policy. Under these circumstances and in the absence of the document (insurance policy), we do not think that the question of extent of liability as fixed by the High Court can be challenged.