IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that procedural fairness is essential in adjudicating claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly regarding the validity of driving licenses and the opportunity for parties to contest evidence presented against them.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

Heard Mr. B. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 13.02.2017, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 2122/2012.

3. In brief, the case of the appellant is that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, as claimants, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was registered as MAC Case No. 2122/2012, before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, wherein the present appellant/owner cum driver of offending vehicle was made as opposite party No. 1 and the present respondent No. 6/insurer as opposite party No. 2 for grant of compensation on account of death of Late Karan Singh in the motor vehicle accident which took place on 27.10.2012 near Dharapur Petrol Pump on NH-37. It is alleged that the accident took place due to rush and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased bearing Registration No. AS-01/MA 2789. Accordingly, the present appellant/owner cum driver and the insurer/respondent No. 6 also appeared in the said case on receipt of the notice and contested the same by filing their Written Statements.

4. The present appellant took all general plea besides denying the negligence in driving vehicle and it is stated interalia that the said vehicle was duly insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Bijoy Nagar Branch vide Policy No. 130202/31/12/ 00000 and the said policy was valid and subsisting on the date of the accident. Apart from that, the owner cum driver also filed his driving license issued by the DTO (R & L), Kamrup, Guwahati and the same was also valid till 21.10.2021.

5. The insurer/respondent No. 6 also filed their written statement denying the claim of the claimants, but it was admitted that the said vehicle (Maruti Car) bearing Registration No. AS-01-K-8841 was duly insured by the company. More so, the insurer has not specifically denied that the driver of the said vehicle was not having valid license at the time of the alleged incident.

6. Accordingly, the learned Member, MACT, disposed of the said case after recording the evidence etc. on 13.02.2017, whereby the learned Tribunal had passed an award of Rs. 6,36,500/-in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum with a direction that the insurance company will pay the compensation amount which they would recover from the owner of the vehicle in due course of time. But, during the evidence of the claimant, Smti Payari Devi, who examined herself as PW1, she exhibited the documents wherein the particulars of the driving license of the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle were also brought on record mentioning that the license was dated 22.10.2007 and valid up to 21.10.2021. In her cross-examination also, she was never put to any question regarding the validity of the driving license of the owner cum driver nor any suggestion was made to her denying the validity of the driving license and in the same time, the insurer also did not give any suggestion challenging the validity of the driving license of the owner cum driver. Thus, the appellant was under impression that as the vehicle is duly insured under the respondent No. 6/Insurance Company and his driving license was also valid at the relevant time of incident as well as there was no challenge made by the other side regarding the validity of the driving license, the insurer of his vehicle would be directed to pay the compensation. But, after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and award, he was surprised to know that the insurance company was directed to pay the awarded compensation amount provided that they would recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle in due course of time.

7. Sub