http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5463 of 1998

PETITIONER: New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

RESPONDENT: Kiran Singh & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/04/2004

BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA & H.K. SEMA.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T   

WITH            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3783 OF 1999      Smt. Kiran Singh & Anr.                                

Versus

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr.                      

H.K.SEMA,J.

       These two appeals arise from the same judgment and order  and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.   Civil  Appeal No.5463 of 1998 had been filed by the New India Assurance  Co. Ltd. against the Award and Civil Appeal No. 3783 of 1999 had  been filed by the claimants for the enhancement.         Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-         A young Assistant Engineer aged about 27 years had died in a  motor accident on 10.1.1988 while travelling in a bus bearing  registration no. URN 9428.   The said bus was insured with the  appellant-company.  At the time of death the deceased was drawing  a salary of Rs. 2384.50 p.  The claim petition was filed by the wife of  the deceased.  The policy issued on 19.5.1987 was comprehensive  and was valid till 18.5.1998.  The Tribunal after considering the  evidence and the insurance policy  awarded a sum of Rs.6,25,000/-  as compensation payable by the appellant-company along with 12%  interest per annum upto date.  On appeal, being filed by the  appellant, the High Court after hearing both the parties at length  maintained the Award granted by the Tribunal but reduced the rate of  interest to 9% per annum instead of 12%.  Aggrieved thereby the  present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company.          Counsel for the appellant-company argued that the original  policy issued by the appellant-company had an endorsement affixed  to it by which "I.M.T 13" was incorporated as a term of the policy and,  therefore, the premium paid by the owner could fetch only to the tune  of Rs.30,000/- as compensation per passenger.    It is argued that the  premium amount paid was Rs.1290/- covering the risk of 43  passengers and, therefore, the amount per passenger comes to  Rs.30/- and as per the Indian Motor Tariff Rules the liability of the  company is only to the extent of Rs.30,000/- per passenger.   It is  further argued that the company had filed true copy of the policy  before the Tribunal in which there is an endorsement "I.M.T.13", but  both the Tribunal and the High Court have committed an error in  placing reliance on the copy of the policy which was produced by the  bank manager, in which there was no endorsement "I.M.T.13" as in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

the case of the copy of the policy produced by the appellant- company.               The above submission had been repelled by both the Tribunal  and the High Court.  Both the Courts below have concurrently held  that the appellant had not led any evidence to prove that the policy  document which was filed by the appellant along with the written  statement was genuine and the same was issued to the insured.    There is no dispute that the appellant-company failed to lead any  evidence to prove that the copy of the policy filed by the company  was genuine.   Such concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation  of evidence cannot be interfered with.  There is a categorical finding  by both the courts below that the so-called insurance policy filed by  the appellant-company had not been proved, as no evidence was led  by the company.  Both the courts below have concurrently held,  based on evidence,  that the copy of the so-called policy produced by  the appellant in absence of proof thereof cannot be treated as a valid  document and cannot be relied upon.  Such concurrent findings of  facts based on appreciation of evidence cannot be termed as  erroneous, which would warrant our interference, in exercise of our  jurisdiction under Article 136.  Similarly, both the courts below have  relied upon the carbon copy of the policy, which was handed over to  the bank at the time of insurance of the vehicle, produced by the bank  manager. The bank manager was examined by the owner and in his  statement he had categorically stated that the policy document is one  which the bank had received in token of the insurance of the vehicle  through the appellant-company.  Keeping in view the statement of the  bank manager which proved that the carbon copy is indicia of the  original copy of the policy, both the courts below were justified in  accepting the copy of the policy produced by the Bank Manager as  genuine documents.  In other words the copy of the policy produced  by the Bank Manager has been proved as genuine.   We are also of  the view, that the Bank Manager  being an independent and  uninterested party, his evidence was rightly accepted by both the  courts as reliable and creditworthy.  It is noticed that the schedule  attached to the policy indicates the excess payment of premium of  Rs.1290/- for covering the risk of 40 passengers.   It is also noticed  that the liability of the appellant-company is unlimited.   We have also  perused the policy and we find that there is no such endorsement  "I.M.T.13", as claimed by the appellant.  We do not see any infirmity  in the findings recorded by both the courts below concurrently.   It is contended that the multiplier of 43 applied by the Tribunal  is erroneous.  In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant  had referred to the decision of this Court in U.P.State Road  Transport Corporation      Vs.     Trilok Chandra,  (1996) 4 SCC  362, wherein this Court has held that the multiplier should not be  more than 18.  The Tribunal while applying the 43 multiplier had  considered the age of the deceased being 27 years and if he had not  died in the accident he would have lived up to the age of 70 years  and one day he would have been promoted to the post of Chief  Engineer.  Keeping the aforesaid background in view, the High Court  was of the view, that if the multiplier is reduced and multiplicand is  enhanced not much difference would be caused to the amount fixed  by the Tribunal.  Even otherwise it is a trite law that the insurance  company is not capable to challenge the quantum of compensation.                Insurance is a covenant of good faith, where both parties are  covenanted to abide by the terms and conditions of the policy.  In the  premises aforesaid, it is clear that the company has made a  deliberate attempt to escape the liability by introducing a copy of the  policy other than the insured.  Often, the terms and conditions are  being respected more in breach than observance.  Insurance  company must bear in mind that they are the trustee of the public.   Keeper of the public coffer.   Often, even genuine claims are being  hotly contested in a routine manner by dragging the parties to courts,  wasting enormous time and money for the claimants to get their  claims settled.  The Act like Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

legislation aimed at quick redressal of the victims of accident arising  out of the use of motor vehicles, the attitude routinely adopted by the  insurance company would render the object of the Act frustrated.  If  such instances are brought to the court, the court would be obliged to  dismiss the appeal with heavy costs, apart from deprecating such  practices.   

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3783 OF 1999

       This appeal had been filed by the claimants for the  enhancement of the compensation.  On 13.4.2004 after the matter  was fully argued by the counsel for the insurance company, an  adjournment was sought for on the ground that Advocate-on-record in  this appeal was out of town.  As the matter was connected with the  appeal preferred by the insurance company, it was adjourned for one  week for further hearing.  On 20.4.2004 also, none appeared for the  appellants to press this matter.  Even otherwise on merit also we do  not find any infirmity in the orders of the courts below which would  warrant our interference.         In the result both the appeals are dismissed.  C.A. No. 5463 of  1998, preferred by the Insurance Company, is dismissed with costs.