Case: National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Jugal Kishore &amp; Others

This appeal by special leave has been filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi, against a judgment of the Delhi High Court in an appeal under section 110D ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). Necessary facts may be stated herein in a nutshell. Shri Jugal Kishore, respondent No. 1, was on June 15, 1969, driving a three-wheeler scooter when he met with an accident with bus No. DLP 3699, driven by Shri Rai Singh, respondent No. 2, and owned by M/s. Delhi Janata Co-operative Transport Society Ltd., respondent No. 3. He sustained injuries consequent upon which he made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the appellant, which was the insurer of the bus aforesaid. The claim of respondent No. 1 was contested by the appellant and also by respondent No. 3 but was proceeded ex parte against respondent No. 2. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 10, 000 recoverable jointly and severally from the appellant and respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the High Court of Delhi and asserted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate. His appeal was allowed by the High Court and the award was modified. The High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000 as compensation to respondent No. 1 with interest at 9 per cent. per annum from the date of institution of the claim till realisation with costs against the driver as well as the owner of the bus as also against the appellant-insurance company.Before granting special leave, this court required the appellant to deposit Rs. 1, 00, 000, namely, the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court, and permitted respondent No. 1 to withdraw the same. Special leave was granted on September 14, 1984, by the following order of this courtUnder the orders of this court, the appellant has deposited Rs. 1 lakh, which is the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. The claimants have withdrawn the amount without furnishing security.Special leave granted on condition that in the event of reversal of the decision of the High Court, the said amount shall not be refunded by the claimants. Stay of further execution of the award confirmed. "

Reasoning:
In the instant case, since, as seen above, the appellant did not undertake in the policy any liability in excess of the statutory liability, the award against it could be only in accordance with the said statutory liability.Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to refer to the attitude often adopted by the insurance companies, as was adopted even in this case, of not filing a copy of the policy before the Tribunal or even before the High Court in appeal. In this connection, what is of significance is that the claimants for compensation under the Act are invariably not possessed of either the policy or a copy thereof. This court has consistently emphasised that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the cause to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant who are under an obligation to act fairly. In many cases even the owner of the vehicle, for reasons known to him, does not choose to produce the policy or a copy thereof. We accordingly wish to emphasise that in all such cases where the insurance company concerned wishes to take a defence in a claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability, it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. Even in the instant case had it been done so at the appropriate stage, the necessity of approaching this court in civil appeal would in all probability have been avoided. Filing a copy of the policy, therefore, not only cuts short avoidable litigation but also helps the court in doing justice between the parties. The obligation on the part of the State or its instrumentalities to act fairly can never be over-emphasised.