The insurance company must prove allegations of fraud regarding a cover note to evade liability, which it failed to do.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present order would dispose of two appeals. The first appeal bearing No.FAO-5848-2016 has been filed by Rajni (owner of Maruti Esteem car No.CH-01Z-6393) and Avdesh Bali (driver of the said Esteem car). Challenge in the said appeal is to the award dated 03.12.2015 vide which liability had been fastened upon the present appellants and the insurance company i.e. Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited had been exonerated. Second appeal bearing No.FAO- 2195-2016 has been filed by the claimants-Jamuna Rani and Raj Kapoor with respect to the death of their son Gurpreet Arora. In the said case, the prayer is made for modification of the award dated 03.12.2015 and for enhancement of the compensation.

FAO-2195-2016

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded i.e. Rs.34,38,000/- along with interest in favour of the claimants is inadequate and further an amount of Rs.3,30,600/- should be awarded to the claimants.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the said appeal and has submitted that the appeal is meritless and the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement and during the course of arguments has referred to the income assessed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”), which as per the counsel is on the higher side.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in view of the objection raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company seeks to withdraw the present appeal, to which the counsel for the respondents have no objection.

5. In view of the above, the present appeal i.e. FAO-2195-2016 is dismissed as withdrawn.

FAO-5848-2016

6. The only issue which arises for consideration and is pressed by the counsel for the appellants in the present appeal is whether under issue No.3 it would be the present appellants i.e. driver and owner who would be liable to pay the compensation as had been held by the Tribunal or it would be the insurance company who would be liable to pay the compensation, as is the case of the appellants. The other aspects are not in dispute and have not been challenged during the course of arguments.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the finding of the Tribunal on the aspect of the insurance company not being liable in spite of there being a cover note (RW-2/B) in favour of the appellants is illegal. It is further submitted that the appellants had produced the cover note bearing No.D2116208 which covered the date when the accident took place i.e. 25.02.2012 and the said cover note was duly issued by the authorised agent of the insurance company. It is stated that RW-2 (Avdesh Bali) had specifically stated in his evidence that the car was duly insured by Future Generali India Insurance Company, Ambala after an amount of Rs.6919/- was paid to the agent of the said insurance company and thereafter, the cover note was issued. It is further argued that even in the written statement filed by the present appellants, who were respondents No.1 and 2 before the Tribunal, a plea had been taken in para 15 to the effect that the car in questio