Case: National Insurance Company Limited, Jodhpur Vs. Bhagu Devi &amp; Others

1. Two pillion riders, namely, Om Prakash and Kewa Ram died as a result of an accident with a tractor bearing No. RJN 2114 on. The case of the appellant is that the aforesaid tractor was not insured with the appellant at the time of the accident. It is alleged that after the accident took place, the owner of the tractor with the connivance of certain officers of the appellant fraudulently got issued a backdated cover note. Subsequently when the said fraud came to the notice of the officials of the appellant, the appellant cancelled the said insurance cover note and informed the Regional Transport Officer also. The heirs of the deceased as well as the injured filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation. In the said claim petitions the appellant along with the owner of the tractor were impleaded as respondents. The appellant filed a written statement wherein it denied its liability for payment of compensation to the claimants. The appellant stated therein that the insurance cover note dated0 was fraudulently got issued with the connivance of certain employees of the Company. On this plea Issue 3 was framed which runs as under :"Whether the owner of the vehicle has obtained insurance of Tractor No. RJN 2114 and Trolley No. RJN 2170 fraudulently due to whicht 6 does not owe any liability to pay damages ?" *2. The Tribunal while allowing the claim petitions decided Issue 3 against the appellant. The appellant thereafter preferred a statutory appeal before the High Court. Since there was a delay of 47 days in filing the appeal, an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit was filed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained and, therefore, the delay cannot be condoned. Incidentally the learned Single Judge also touched certain aspects of the case on merits. However, so far as Issue 3 was concerned it was not considered. The appeal was consequently dismissed. The appellant thereafter preferred an LPA before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench agreed with the view taken by the Single Judge. Consequently, the letters patent appeal was also dismissed. It is against the said judgment the appellant is in appeal before us.

Reasoning:
4. We have looked into the explanation given by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the High Court. We find that the cause shown by the appellant in filing the appeal was sufficient and delay ought to have been condoned by the High Court and further the High Court touched upon the merits of the matter without considering Issue 3.