The Insurance Company must prove any defenses against liability, including fraud, and the insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident.

ORDER :

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Leave granted.

FACTS:

2. These appeals arise from the common Final Judgment and Order dated 05.10.2018 rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. Nos.2921/2018 (O&M) and 2922/2018 (O&M) whereby, while dismissing the appeals preferred by the Petitioner-Insurance Company, the High Court upheld the compensation awarded to the claimants i.e., Respondents No.1 and 2 herein vide Award dated 01.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal at Gurdaspur, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT’) in the claim petitions¹[MACT Cases No.09/2017 and 10/2017] filed by the Respondents No.1 and 2. The MACT had awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.67,50,000/- and Rs.8,70,000/- with interest @9% per annum to the Respondent No.1, being the mother of Sh. Om Prakash and mother-in-law of Smt. Asha Rani, and Respondent No.2, being the daughter of Sh. Om Prakash and Smt. Asha Rani, who expired in an unfortunate road accident on 11.04.2017. The MACT assessed and quantified the compensation as under:

3. The MACT held Respondent No.3, Respondent No.4 and the Petitioner, being driver, owner and insurer, respectively, as jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants. The MACT specifically observed that the Petitioner-Insurance Company could not avoid its liability to indemnify Respondent No.4, owner of tractor bearing registration No.PB-06-Q-6846 and thus, held it liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

4. The High Court, while considering the appeals preferred by the Petitioner-Insurance Company and in view of the position on record, particularly the evidence of the claimants and Ex. R-5, the proposal form and Ex. R-6, the insurance policy, having gone unrebutted, concluded that there was no reason to disbelieve the findings recorded by the MACT after appreciation of evidence. It upheld the MACT’s Award.

5. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the High Court and the MACT, the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Insurance Company’) is before us.

SUBMISSIONS, ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:

6. Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the present petitions are misconceived.

7. First and foremost, the basic contention put forth by the Insurance Company is that the vehicle which was insured with it, was not involved in the accident and some other vehicle was mentioned in the initial Written Statement filed before the MACT. On this point, there is a detailed discussion in the Award of the MACT itself which explains that various witnesses have stated that it was the vehicle as described in the complaint which was involved in the accident and further, that one witness produced by the Insurance Company had only raised some doubt with regard to the vehicle as claimed by the complainants, but not with the make of the vehicle involved in the accident as the difference in number was that instead of the vehicle that the c