IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARCHANA PURI, J.
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Parshini Kaur & Ors. – Respondents
FAO-8296 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 26-04-2024
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Archana Puri, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-insurance company, thereby assailing the liability fastened upon it, together with the owner and driver of the offending car bearing registration No.PB-10AT- 3312, vis-a-vis, the compensation assessed, on account of death of Jarnail Singh, in a motor vehicular accident.
2. The accident in question had taken place on 23.04.2014, as a result whereof, Jarnail Singh received injuries, which proved fatal. Learned Tribunal had concluded about the accident to have taken place, on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending car by respondent-Kamaldeep Singh and ultimately, on appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned Tribunal had granted compensation to the extent of Rs. 25,86,216/-, to the respondents-claimants and the liability was fastened, jointly and severally upon the driver, owner and insurer of the offending car.
3. Feeling aggrieved, only the insurance company had filed the present appeal, thereby assailing the liability, so fastened upon it, to pay the compensation.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that though, the fact and manner of taking place of the accident, as concluded by learned Tribunal, is not assailed, it is in fact, only the liability, which is questioned by the insurance company. In fact, it is submitted that it is the categoric claim of the insurance company that the car bearing registration No.PB-10AT-3312 was never insured with the insurance company, whereas, respondents-driver and owner had taken the plea of the offending car to be insured with the insurance company w.e.f 22.02.2014 to 21.02.2015.
5. The insurance policy has come on record as Ex.R4 and R9. However, the insurance company asserts about the said policy to have never been issued by it. In this regard, RW-1 Shivbind Singh, Manager, Risk and Loss Litigation Unit, has been examined, whose affidavit is Ex.RW1/A. This witness, in his affidavit, stated about policy No.2319 2005 4506 9500 000 produced by respondents-driver, is a fake document. He also stated therein that no policy had been issued by the insurance company for the vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10AT-3312, in the name of Pritpal Singh s/o Sh.Joginder Singh, for the period 25.02.2014 to 24.02.2015 and even, no proposal was received to get the insurance policy from the insurance company. In fact, it is also stated by him in the affidavit that it was a fake policy and no premium was received by the insurance company. Further, it is stated that the insurance company got verified the record of policy No. 2319 2005 4506 9500 000 and stated about alleged policy to be forged and fictitious document. Furthermore, this witness had also stated that the insurance company had sent an application dated 22.06.2015 to SHO, P.S. Sadar Khanna, through registered post No.ED467398660IN, for initiation of action against accused persons.
6. In this regard, before coming to the cross-examination of the said witness, also it is pertinent to mention that Pritpal Singh had stepped into witness box as RW-2. He had categorically deposed about himself to be registered owner of the car bearing registration No.PB-10AT-3312 and that the same was insured with the insurance company w.e.f. 22.02.2014 to 21.02.2015. He also further stated that the said policy was issued by the company, after charging premium through its authorised agent M/s Aarvi General Insurance Services with agent code 200936320702 to Sh.Jagdeep Singh and the said policy has been denied, at the last end, in order to avoid the liability.
7. Such being the evidence of the rival parties, coming on record, it is pertinent to mention that the no satisfactory evidence, at the instance of the insurance company, has come on record, to prove about the alleged insurance policy to be forged and fabricated. It is categoric claim of Pritpal Singh, about the premium paid through authorised agent M/s Aarvi General In
The insurer failed to prove the insurance policy was fake, thus affirming liability for compensation awarded in a vehicular accident.
The insurance company bears the burden to prove the authenticity of the insurance policy, and failure to investigate alleged fraud results in liability for compensation.
(1) Motor Insurance – A third party claimant is not concerned with dispute between Insurer and insured.(2) Burden is on insurance company to prove that policy of insurance produced on record is fake.
The insurer is not liable for compensation if the insured fails to prove the legitimacy of the insurance policy, which was claimed to be fake.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the claimants unless it can be proved that the insured was aware of the fake license and still pe....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.