Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 3035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mr. Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2830/2018
Decided On : 09-09-2022
Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv., for the Appellant; Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that un-exhibited documents, including photocopies, cannot be relied upon for assessing claims and awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Photocopies - Motor Accident Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an insurance company, appealed against a compensation award to the claimant for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The main issue was whether photocopies of un-exhibited documents could be considered by the Tribunal for assessing the claimant's income and passing the award.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Tribunal had allowed the claimant to submit un-exhibited photocopies of certain documents at the final arguments stage, without following proper process. The Court held that these un-exhibited documents could not be relied upon and formed the basis for awarding compensation.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of photocopies of un-exhibited documents for assessing the claimant's income and passing the compensation award.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that mere submission of photocopies of documents does not amount to their proof, and documents need to be marked as exhibits and proved in accordance with the law. The Court also highlighted the need for proper process and evidence in assessing claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and award, directing the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh based on the evidence led by both parties until a specified date.
ORDER
1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellantInsurance Company against the judgment and award dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ’the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.548/2013 whereby an amount of Rs.44,93,342/-was awarded as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by claimant-respondent- Manoj Kumar in the accident occurred on 23.01.2013.
2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimant-respondent and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.44,93,342/- under various heads in favour of the claimant-respondent.
3. The issue involved in this appeal is that ’whether photocopies of un-exhibited documents can be taken into consideration by the Tribunal for assessing the income of the claimant and passing the award?’
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the respondent-claimant submitted a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 23.01.2013. Neither any permanent disability certificate was produced on record nor any doctor was examined to prove the disability suffered by the claimant-respondent. Counsel submits that in this matter, evidence of the claimant-respondent was closed on 07.01.2017 and thereafter the case was posted for recording the evidence of the non-claimants since no evidence was produced by the nonclaimants, their evidence was closed on 25.03.2017 and the case was posted for final arguments on 13.04.2017. Counsel submits that thereafter the matter was deferred for one date to another for final arguments, but all of a sudden on 17.02.2018, photocopies of certain documents were submitted on the record of the Tribunal without supplying a copy of the same to the appellant-Insurance Company and the matter was posted for final arguments on 06.03.2018 and the impugned award has been passed on 12.03.2018. On the basis of the photocopies submitted by the claimant-respondent, an exorbitant award to the tune of Rs.44,93,342/ has been passed against the appellant-Insurance Company. Counsel submits that it is a well-settled proposition of law that no photocopies of any document can be taken into consideration at the time of final arguments unless and until these documents are submitted on record through a proper process following the law and these documents cannot be read or relied until and unless the same are marked as exhibits on the record.
5. Counsel submits that the photocopies of these documents could not have been taken into consideration even without supplying a copy of the same to the appellant-Insurance Company. Counsel submits that the appellant-Insurance Company did not get any opportunity to submit any evidence in rebuttal and crossexamine the witnesses. Counsel submits that a novel procedure has been adopted by the Tribunal while entertaining these documents at the stage of final arguments, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. Counsel further submits that though no disability certificate was available on the record and even assuming for a moment that this case was a case of 30% permanent disability then the loss of income of the injured could have been assessed on the basis of his 30% permanent disability. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Satish Chandra Sharma and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1579/2022 decided on 23.02.2022. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellantInsurance Company and submits that the claimant-respondent was serving in Indian Army and because of the injurie
