Skip to content


New India Assurance Co. Vs. Galku and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 1980
Judge
Reported inI(1985)ACC84; [1986]60CompCas175(Raj)
AppellantNew India Assurance Co.
RespondentGalku and ors.
Appellant Advocate S.C. Srivastava, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S.K. Keshote, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....vehicle. the tribunal awarded rs. 15,000 as compensation in favour of the claimants.2. in this appeal, shri s.c. srivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the new india assurance co. wants to challenge the finding of the tribunal on the ground that the policy of insurance was not produced before the learned tribunal.3. shri s.k. keshote, learned counsel for the respondents, pointed out that this objection was not raised before the tribunal. shri srivastava further wanted to point out that if the policy would have been produced, it would have shown that it was in respect of the vehicle in question in the name of one shri farhas hussain, which was not covered by it. in my considered opinion, it is purely a question of fact, whether the transfer of the vehicle was there or not, or.....
Judgment:

Guman Mal Lodha, J.

1. This appeal relates to an accident which occurred on November 26, 1976, in which Heeralal died on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. RJR 3279 by Shyam Behari, driver. The claimants, Galku and Sohan, being the legal representatives of the deceased, Heeralal, claimed a sum of Rs. 46,200 by way of compensation from the owner, driver and the insurer of the ill-fated vehicle. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000 as compensation in favour of the claimants.

2. In this appeal, Shri S.C. Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the New India Assurance Co. wants to challenge the finding of the Tribunal on the ground that the policy of insurance was not produced before the learned Tribunal.

3. Shri S.K. Keshote, learned counsel for the respondents, pointed out that this objection was not raised before the Tribunal. Shri Srivastava further wanted to point out that if the policy would have been produced, it would have shown that it was in respect of the vehicle in question in the name of one Shri Farhas Hussain, which was not covered by it. In my considered opinion, it is purely a question of fact, whether the transfer of the vehicle was there or not, or whether it was covered by an insurance policy or not. The insurance company cannot absolve itself, because the insurance company's policy or, in any case, its record remained with them only and if such objection has not been raised before the learned Tribunal, it cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time before this court, in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed without any order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //