The main legal point established in the judgment is the insurer's burden of proof regarding the driver's license and the tribunal's authority to determine just compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)

Subject matter of this appeal is the award dated 4th June, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chamba, Division Chamba (Himachal Pradesh) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No. 20/2008, titled as Smt. Misso Devi & another versus Shri Bhagi & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,58,400/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’).

2. The claimants, driver and owner have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them.

3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

4. Thus, only following three questions are to be determined in this appeal:

1. The driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident;

2. The alleged driver was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident; and

3. The compensation amount awarded is excessive.

5. In order to return findings on the aforesaid points, it is necessary to give brief resume of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the present appeal.

6. Driver, namely, Nikku Ram had driven the vehicle i.e. Alto Car bearing registration H.P. HP-01C-0152, rashly and negligently, on 28.06.2007, near Dhundha Morh near Kharamukh, Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba and caused the accident, in which deceased, namely, Rakesh Kumar, sustained injuries. He was taken to Primary Health Centre, Garola and was referred to Regional Hospital Chamba. Thereafter, he was taken to K.D. Hospital, Amritsar. The deceased remained admitted in the hospital right from 29.06.2007 to 05.08.2007. Again, he was admitted in Regional Hospital, Chamba, where he succumbed to the injuries on 08.08.2007.

7. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections.

8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:

“1. Whether Shri Rakesh Kumar died due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HP-01C-0152 by respondent Nikku Ram as alleged? ….OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? …OPP

3. Whether driver of the vehicle no. HP- 01C-0152 was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? …OPR-3

4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? …OPR-3

5. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petition? …OPR-3

6. Relief.”

Issue No. 1.

9. FIR No. 33 of 2007, dated 28.06.2007, under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short ‘the MV Act’ (Ext. PW-3/A) was registered against driver Nikku Ram in Police Station Bharmour. Investigation was conducted and final charge-sheet came to be presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba, which culminated into Case No. 398-1/07/11-II/08 titled as State of H.P. versus Nikku Ram. After facing the trial, driver Nikku Ram came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 25.07.2011, while granting benefit of doubt.

10. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, passed the impugned award.

11. Nikku Ram has not questioned the findings returned on Issue No. 1.

12. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly decided Issue No. 1, needs no interference.

13. Before I deal with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues 3 to 5.

Issues No. 3 to 5.

14. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, was holding a learner’s licence, which is at page 167 of the Tribunal’s file (Ext. R-3). The argument of the learned Counsel is devoid of any force for the following reasons.

15. It was fo