The validity of insurance cover notes and the transfer of ownership of vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri. S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Ankur Goel, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 24.07.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Agra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 769 of 2010 for a compensation of Rs. 4,36,500/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum.

3. Briefly stating the facts are that on 29.08.2010 while deceased Sachin Kumar was riding Motorcycle No. U.P. 80 B.P. 5229 and was going to village Kakuwa along with native Ravi as pillion rider, that around 4.30 p.m., when motorcycle reached at Agra-Gwalior Road on Bhahai turning, an Eicher Tractor being driven quite rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle by coming on wrong side, resultantly Sachin suffered grievous fatal injuries and died on the spot and tractor driver ran away from the scene of incident. The claim petition was filed by Smt. Sapna Devi, young widow aged about 19 years, Smt. Ramdevi, mother of deceased and Km. Nitin, unmarried sister of the deceased aged about 18 years.

4. The claimants filed various documents like the certified copy of the insurance cover note (paper No. 11-C), first information report, spot inspection report, inquest report and post-mortem report etc. The widowed wife Smt. Sapna Devi got examined as PW-1, whereas, one Dashrath as PW-2. The total claim was set up for Rs. 20 lacs along with 12% interest.

5. The Insurance Company refuted the claim set up by the claimants/respondents out-rightly and set up a claim that the insurance cover submitted by the claimants and the insurance policy was fake one and was not issued by it and appears to have been prepared for the purposes of case. The Insurance Company accordingly filed copy of insurance policy as paper No. 29-C/1 and insurance cover note as 29-C/2, 29-C/3 as receipt of premium paid towards the insurance and the claim is accordingly of the Insurance Company that the insurance cover note which has been filed, is of the same number that was issued in favour of Toyota Fortuner Car in the name of Ashish Gautam as Ashish Gautam had been issued the premium receipt against the premium drawn in favour of the Insurance Company. The owner of the vehicle and the driver also produced paper No. 30-C/1 as original insurance cover note of the tractor in question.

6. After considering the oral testimonies of the witnesses of the rival parties and evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to conclude that the cover note which was submitted by the owner of the vehicle bearing No. 002300174211 paper No. 31-C/1 to be valid one and it further held that it did not appear to be forged one from its very look. It had been issued by one Brijesh, agent of the Insurance Company and in case if the Brijesh was not agent of Insurance Company, then Insurance Company must have lodged complaint or FIR against the forgery being committed by Brijesh as an alleged agent of Insurance Company but nothing was done. The Tribunal further recorded that the owner of vehicle had brought the vehicle to the HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company and it was inspected then and there, according to his testimony, the cover note was issued on spot itself. The Tribunal also recorded that registration could be done of a vehicle only after insurance is done by Insurance Company under the rules as per testimony of defence witness. The Tribunal held that even from the cross-examination of respondent No. 1 conducted by the counsel of respondent No. 3, nothing intrinsic has come out so as to deduce something to hold that deposition had been falsely made by the owner of the vehicle. Further deliberating on the issue of the same number cover note having been issued to one Ashish Gautam in respect of a Toyota Fortuner Car on 12.08.2010, the Tribunal relied on the testimony of DW-2, the RTO official Sushma Agarwal in which she stated