New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Arabinda Mukherjee and Others

Calcutta High Court 1 Aug 1986 A.F.O.O. No. 532 of 1978 (1987) ACJ 544
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

A.F.O.O. No. 532 of 1978

Hon'ble Bench

M. Mallick, J; G.N. Ray, J

Advocates

Biswajit Chowdhury, for the Appellant;Samindra Kumar Das, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Judgement Text

Translate:

G.N. Ray, J.@mdashThis appeal is directed against an award passed against the New India Assurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs.

50,000/- on account of an accident caused by a lorry bearing No. WBL 7819. It is the case of the claimant-Petitioner who is the Respondent No.

1 in the instant appeal that the said vehicle was insured with M/s Anand Insurance Company Limited which became one of the constituents of the

New India Assurance Company Limited under the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. It appears that the objector-Appellant

in the written objection has specifically contended that the vehicle in question was not insured with M/s. Anand Insurance Company Limited and

the said insurance company had also called upon the owner of the said vehicle to produce the papers to show that the vehicle in question had been

insured with M/s. Anand Insurance Company Limited at the time of the accident. The Appellant-objector also contended that the said objector

could not be impleaded in the said proceeding and should not be saddled with any liability on account of the accident in question. It appears that

the employees from the Motor Vehicle Department had come to depose in the said proceeding but they could not tell from the records that the

vehicle in question was insured with M/s. Anand Insurance Company Limited at the relevant time. The learned Judge awarded a compensation of

Rs. 55,000/- and passed the award against New India Assurance Company Limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- on the footing that since the

insurance company could not establish with reference to their books of the year 1972 that the vehicle in question had not been insured with the

insurance company, it should be held that the vehicle in question was insured with M/s. Anand Insurance Company, the constituent of the objector

insurance company.

2. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has strongly contended before us that it was the duty of the claimant to establish that the

vehicle in question was insured with Anand Insurance Company at the relevant time and if the said vehicle was insured with Anand Insurance

Company at the relevant time and if the said fact was established by the claimant, the New India Assurance Company Limited certainly could have

been saddled with the liability to the extent of the sum assured by the policy or to the extent of the maximum statutory liability. He has contended

that in the instant case there is no material on the basis of which the Tribunal could proceed against M/s. Anand Insurance Company Limited or the

objector insurance company as the insurer. The award, it appears, was passed against the New India Assurance Company Limited on surmise that

the company was the insurer of the vehicle. Mr. Chowdhury has contended that the burden to prove the liability of the insurance company was on

the Applicant but the Applicant failed to discharge the said burden. There is no prima facie evidence given by the claimant on the basis of which it

can be reasonably held that the primary onus to prove the liability of the insurance company having been discharged by the claimant, the insurance

company was under an obligation to dispel the onus of the insurance company to prove that it was not the insurer with reference to its records. In

our view, the said contention is justified and we accept the same.

3. It may be noted that the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-Respondent could not satisfy us that proper steps had been taken by the

claimant-Petitioner to call for the records of the insurance company and in spite of calling for the records for production, the insurance company

had failed to produce the records and on that account an adverse inference could be legally drawn against the insurance company.

4. In the circumstances aforesaid, we allow this appeal and set aside the award passed against the Appellant-insurance company for the sum of Rs.

50,000/-.

5. The award is, however, modified to this extent that the Respondent No. 2, Tribhuban Nath Tewari should suffer the award to the extent of Rs.

55,000/-.

6. There will be no order as to costs.

7. The sum since been deposited by the insurance company in terms of the interim order passed by this Court may be withdrawn by the New India

Assurance Company Limited.

8. Drawing of formal decree is dispensed with.

Monoranjan Mallick, J.

9. I agree.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Halts GST Assessment on Joint Development Deals
Oct
28
2025

Story

Supreme Court Halts GST Assessment on Joint Development Deals
Read More
Supreme Court Explains Demurrer Law in Neelkanth Realty Case
Oct
28
2025

Story

Supreme Court Explains Demurrer Law in Neelkanth Realty Case
Read More