NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus KIRAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 795 · Decided: 28-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
KIRAN SINGH AND ORS. 
APRIL 28, 2004 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Motor accident-Death of passenger of 
young age-Extra premium paid by insured for covering risk of 4p 
passengers-Claim for compensation-Policy document produced by 
insurance company as well as the Bank-Grant of award relying on docume~t C 
placed by Bank as the same was proved as genuine-Award confirmed by 
't 
High Court-Jn appeal, held: Compensation rightly awarded-lnsurance-
company is not capable to challenge the quantum of compensation-Company 
attempted to escape the liability by introducing copy of policy other than the 
~~ 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 136-Special Leave Petition-
Jurisdiction under-Scope of-Jn concurrent finding of fact based on 
appreciation of evidence-Held: In such cases Court should not interfere. 
An Assistant Engineer aged 27 years died in a bus accident. His wife E 
filed petition claiming compensation. Appellant-Insurance Company filed the 
Policy with the Tribunal. The Bank also filed the carbon copy of the policy 
and the Bank Manager in his evidence stated that the policy document was 
the one which the Bank had received in token of the insurance of the vehicle 
through the appellant-company. Tribunal relying on the policy produced by F 
the Bank using the multiplier of 43 granted compensation alongwith 12% 
interest. High Court maintained the award but reduced the rate of interest to 
9%. Appellant-company as well as claimant preferred appeal to this Court. 
Appellant-company contended that the company was liable to par 
compensation only to the extent of Rs. 30,000 per passenger as per the origin41 G 
policy produced by it before the Tribunal had the endorsement "I.M.T.t3i; 
that the Courts below wrongly relied on the policy produced by the BanJ< 
Manager which did not have "l.M.T.13" endorsement; and that the multiplier 
of 43 was wrongly applied. 
795 
H 
796 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Both the courts below had 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 
B be termed as erroneous which would warrant interference in exercise of 
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 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 
C document. The Bank Manager being an independent ~nd uninterested party, 
his evidence was rightly accepted by both tlie 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. On perusal of the policy, it is found that there is no such 
endorsement "I.M.T.13", as claimed by the appellant. There is no infirmity 
D in the findings recoi-ded by both the courts below concurrently. 
~,,. 
[798-E~H; 799-A-B) 
2. 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 
E promoted o the post of Chief Engineer. High Court was of the view, that ifthe 
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. [799-C-E) 
F 
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. TrilokChandra, (1996) 4 SCC 
362, referred to. 
3. Insurance is a covenant of good faith, where both parties are 
covenanted to abide by the terms and conditions of the policy. In the present 
G ca~e,.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 trustees of the public; keeper of 
the public coffer. Often, even genuine claims are being hotly contested in a 
routine manner by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.