The burden of proof lies on the owner to prove the driver had a valid license, and compensation should be based on evidence, not conjecture.

H. Baruah, J.

1. Heard Mr. V. K. Jindal, learned Counsel for and on behalf of the appellant, M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and also heard Mr. H. Mongkhlaw, learned Counsel for and on behalf of the respondent.

2. The appellant, M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. by presenting this instant appeal has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 28-5-2007 passed in MAC Case No. 13/2007 by the learned Member, MACT, Shillong.

3. An accident took place at Ryngdang-briew under Umiam Police Station, Ri-Bhoi District on Guwahati Shillong Road of 24-12-2004 at 7-45 p.m. and in the said accident a Maruti Car being registration No. ML 05C-5768 belonging to respondent No. 1 herein got damaged on being hit by a Truck bearing registration No. TR IC-1592 belonging to respondent No. 2 herein. The owner, respondent No. 1 as claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the damage caused to his vehicle from the insurer of the Truck, the appellant; the owner, the respondent No. 2 and the driver, the respondent No. 3. The appellant alone contested the claim by filing written statement on all grounds since the owner and the driver failed to appear and contest despite due service of notice. Before the learned Tribunal, in support of the claim, the respondent No. 1 adduced evidence both oral and documentary. The appellant herein, the opposite party in the claim petition also adduced evidence both oral and documentary in support of its case. The learned Tribunal at the conclusion of the enquiry awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,10,618.00 under two different heads with interest @ 7.5% on the amount from the date of filing of the application. Feeling aggrieved thereby this instant appeal has been filed by the insurance Company, the insurer of the Truck bearing registration No. TR IC-1592.

4. Mr. V. K. Jindal, learned Counsel for and on behalf of the appellant, M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. at the very out set has challenged the impugned judgment and award mainly on two grounds:

a) that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding that the driver Badal Bhowmick had a valid driving license thereby holding the appellant company liable for compensation;

b) that the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation on surmise and conjecture.

5. In regard to the answer to the first point that has been raised by Mr. Jindal, it is submitted that driving license No. 5538/Tri stood in the name of one Bholanath Saraj, not in the name of Badal Bhowmick, the respondent No. 3. Another driving license bearing No. 5538/Tri also stood in the name of one Nepal Chandra Das. Annexure-1, Annexure-2 and Annexure-4 which is a confirmation letter issued by the licensing authority, West Tripura, according to Mr. Jindal makes the position of the case very clear and transparent that driving license No. 5538-/Tri did never stand in the name of Badal Bhowmick. Learned Tribunal according to Mr. Jindal committed error in holding that the respondent No. 3, the driver must have had a valid and genuine driving license on the relevant point of time. Learned Counsel for the claimant failed to justify the reasoning of the learned Tribunal in this context. The grounds of acceptance offered by the learned Tribunal are apparently not surviving and acceptable Mr. Jindal argued. In view of the submissions so raised by Mr. Jindal, learned Counsel for and on behalf of the appellant, the judgment so rendered by the learned Tribunal is carefully perused wherefrom it is found that the finding on this issue is not based on evidence rather on presumption. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that learned Tribunal ought to have accepted and acted upon the evidence of the surveyor of the appellant company who made a detailed investigation with the matter. The confirmation letter issued by the licensing authorities gives a boost to the evidence of the surveyor.

6. During the course of argument, Mr. V.K. Jindal a