The Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on
record has reasoned in its impugned Judgments as follows;
MAC App. Nos.07, 08 and 09 of 2020 10
“27. Shri Bikash Roy Pradhan, the Branch
Manager of the Opposite Party No. 3 clearly admitted
that Shri Rajen Tamang is the authorized agent of
Opposite Party No.3. Exhibit-10 is the certified copy of
the Insurance Policy of the vehicle. In Exhibit-10, in
place of the details of the agent/Broker, the name
of Shri Rajen Tamang with his agent code number as
„BA000015623‟ has been clearly mentioned. Exhibit-
10 was served upon the Opposite Party No.3. The
Opposite Party No. 3 failed to produce and examine
Shri Rajen Tamang, Authorized Agent of Oriental
Insurance Company Limited (Opposite Party No. 3)
despite several opportunities having been given to it.
By perusal of Exhibit -10, it is difficult to identify the
fake and the genuine policy. There is no evidence
produced by the Opposite Party No.3 that the
Opposite Party No.1 owner of the vehicle had
involved himself or influenced the said Shri Rajen
Tamang to illegally issued the fake insurance policy to
him. The Opposite Party No. 3 has not exhibited any
complaint/document against the Opposite Parties No.
1, 4 or Shri Rajen Tamang, authorized agent of
Opposite Party No. 3 stating that the Opposite Parties
No.1 and 4 had obtained a fake insurance policy of
the Oriental Insurance Company Limited or Shri Rajen
Tamang handed over the fake insurance policy to the
Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 4 and the same was in
their personal knowledge. There is no evidence to the
effect that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 4 had
obtained fake insurance policy in collusion with the
staff or agent of Opposite Party No.3. From evidence
on record, no apparent role appears to have been
played by the owner in obtaining the fake insurance
policy. It is very difficult to pin point who is
responsible for issuance of the fake insurance policy.
It is unbelievable that an insured would obtain a fake
certificate by paying the same premium at his own
risk and peril. The Opposite Party No.4 Shri Biren
Gurung further establishes that in order to obtain
Exhibit-10, Opposite Party No.1 had given him ₹
14,500/. He personally knows Rajen Tamang as he
is the agent of the Opposite Party No.3. Opposite
Party No.4 paid a sum of ₹ 14,500/- to Rajen
Tamang, agent of the Opposite Party No. 3 through
one Palden Bhutia and Rajen Tamang handed over
Exhibit-10 to Opposite Party No.4. Opposite Party No.
4 further establishes that as per the direction of
Rajen Tamang, he handed over premium amount to
Shri Palden Bhutia. On the facts and circumstances of
the case at hand, it cannot be held that Opposite
Party No.1 (Owner of the vehicle) has any role to
play in issuance of the fake policy, on the other hand
evidence on the record cast suspicion towards the
authorized agent of the insurance company. Since,
Opposite Party No. 3 has admitted that Shri Rajen
Tamang is its authorized agent, there is master and
servant relation between the Opposite Party No.
3 and the said Shri Rajen Tamang. From this angle
MAC App. Nos.07, 08 and 09 of 2020 11
also Opposite Party No. 3 is liable for the act of the
said Rajen Tamang. However, the Opposite Party No.
3 is as liberty to conduct an inquiry against its agent
Rajen Tamang in respect of issuance of Exhibit 10 to
find out the actual fact as narrated supra and if found
guilty, it can recover the amount paid to the Claimant
by way of the Award in the instant claim petition from
the said Rajen Tamang.” [emphasis supplied]
13. The observations of the Learned Tribunal in arriving at
its conclusions is perfectly reasoned and brooks no interference.
{Para 12}
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
MAC App. No.07 of 2020
The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs
Padam Bahadur Rai and Others
Coram: Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
