Case: New India Ass. Co. Ltd Vs. Giribala Kalita

Aggrieved against this order the present appeal was filed by the insurance company. It is alleged that on 20th November, 1987 Dambarudhar Kalita was driving his autorickshaw when he was hit by Omni bus bearing registration No.He sustained serious injuries and was removed to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. Therefore, the claimants i.e. mother and brother of the deceased Kalita filed a claim petition before the MACT, Gauhati as legal heirs of the deceased, claiming a sum of Rs.The objection of the appellantinsurance company was that their liability is to the extent of Rs.50,000/against the order dated 25th June, 1993 an appeal was preferred by the claimants before the High Court and the High Court held that it is wrong to say that the insurance companys liability is to the extent of Rs.50,000/only but insurance company is liable for the entire amount. Accordingly, the entire liability was fastened on the insuranceagainst the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28th March, 2000 the present appeal was filed. It is alleged that the vehicle was owned by one Ramchandran. A notice was issued by this Court to Ramchandran who alleged to be the owner of the vehicle but he was not represented despite service.

Reasoning:
We have gone through the papers and we find that there is some doubt about the signatures of Respondent No.3 on the so called power of attorney and also on the written statement. The original record was brought before this Court and the certified copies of that record has been filed by the respondent which shows that the signatures of Ramchandran appears to have been forged one as they are not similar to the signatures of Ramchandran on the basis of the documents produced beforeit is a very serious matter that somebody else is appearing by proxy on behalf of Ramchandran and matter has been disposed of by the Court on the so called representation by Respondent No.3 whereas Respondent No.3 submits that he never appeared before the Courts below nor appointed any power of attorney. Therefore, it is a very serious matter which has to be investigated as to who is the proxy on behalf of Respondent No.3. However, looking to the facts and circumstances we think it proper that the investigation should be done to find out whether Respondent No.3 was the same person and whether he was being duly represented before the Lower Court or not. Prima facie on the basis of the record which is made available before us, it appears that Respondent No.3 was never served either before the claims tribunal or before the High Court.