IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance liability is contingent on the validity of the driver's license; if the driver has a fake license, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. K. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 as well as Mr. G. Jalan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. The appellant Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02.03.2021 passed in MAC Case No. (D)275/2013 by Court of the Additional District Judge (FTC)- cum- Member, MACT, Darrang, Mangaldai has approached this Court by filing the instant Appeal.

3. Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the instant Appeal is directed primarily on the non-consideration of the materials on record while adjudicating the Issue No.II by the learned Tribunal below. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the proceedings there were various orders being passed by the learned Tribunal for the appearance of the District Transport Office (DTO), Tuensung, Nagaland in respect to the veracity of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle. The DTO concerned did not appear, however, submitted documents to the effect that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was a fake driving license. The learned counsel for the appellant therefore submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the said aspect of the matter, rather, the learned Tribunal went into an aspect while adjudicating the Issue No.II which was never the case of the appellant Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the appellant therefore submitted that appellant Insurance Company is not adverse to making payment of the amount subject to appropriate observation that the Appellant Insurance Company can recover the same from the respondent No.2.

4. Mr. G. Jalan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 submitted that the Appellant Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence. Under such circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the Appellant Insurance Company to make a submission to the effect as regards the Issue No.II.

5. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submitted that on account of a tussle between the appellant Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle, the claimant is suffering taking into account that the accident occurred on 10.11.2012 and there was a valid insurance policy as would be seen from the impugned judgment and award during the period when the accident occurred. The learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 therefore submitted that the claimant should not be put to further distress on account of the dispute between the appellate Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle.

6. Taking into account the limited point on which this Court is required to adjudicate the instant Appeal, the facts which led to the filing of the instant Appeal is narrated infra.

7. The respondent No.1 who is the claimant herein was the wife of one Dharmeswar Deka (since deceased). Late Dharmeswar Deka who was a constable of Assam Police (ABC No.134) and at that relevant point of time, he was serving as a PSO of one Mr. Rajib Loson Pegu, Minister of Flood Control, Assam. The husband of the claimant on 10.11.2012 was proceeding along with Sri Rajib Loson Pegu as PSO in the pilot car bearing registration AS-30-3738 which was coming from Dibrugarh to Guwahati and nearby Rangamati Tiniali on NH37, the offending vehicle bearing registration AS-03/C-6372 which was coming from Dibrugarh towards Guwahati in a rash and negligent manner crossed over the said Government pilot vehicle and thereafter suddenly stopped in the midst of the road as a result of which the vehicle bearing registration No.AS-30-3738 was knocked down and was damaged. The husband of the claimant suffered grievous inju