1. Shri Qazi Hilal Ahmad, respondent-1 herein on 15.7.2004 while proceeding from Srinagar to Jammu in his Maruti Car, was hit by a Truck bearing Registration No. JK03-2531 coming from the opposite direction. Respondent-1 sustained injuries and was administered medical treatment at Bones and Joints Hospital, Barzulla Srinagar. Respondent-1 on 30.09.2004 filed a claim petitioner under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Srinagar. The petitioner claimed compensation on account of loss of earning, future capacity to earn medical expenses etc. before the tribunal.

2. Respondent-1 in the claim petition (present appellant) filed objections to the claim petition. Respondents 2 and 3 opted not to appear and contest the petition and were said ex-parte on 12.03.2005. Respondent No. 2 in the claim petition/driver of the Truck, nonetheless was examined as witness by the appellant. Learned tribunal after the issues were settled and the parties afforded an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respect stand, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 3.35 (rupees three lacs thirty five thousand) in favour of the claimants. Respondent No. 2 in the claim petition/driver of the offending vehicle having been found to have been driven the vehicle without an effective and driving licence, was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 35,000/- out of the awarded amount. The break-up of the awarded amount was: Rs. 90,000/- on account of loss of income, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss of future prospects, Rs. 60,000/- on account of tests and medicines, Rs. 10,000/- for the inconvenience, Rs. 25,000/- on account of permanent partial disability and Rs. 50,000/- on account of pains and sufferings.

3. The appellant assails the award through the medium of instant appeal on the following grounds:-

i) That the diver of the offending vehicle did not hold driving licence at the time of accident and was thus driving the offending vehicle without any driving licence. The driving licence later presented by the driver, was found to be faked and the appellant could not have been burdened with the obligation to pay compensation to the claimants in as much as the owner had committed a bread of insurance contract and the compensation if any, was recoverable from the owner.

ii) That the compensation awarded was exorbitant, excessive and unjust.

4. Heard.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant took a specific plea before the learned tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and as such, the appellant was not under obligation to pay compensation to the claimants, and that the plea taken by the appellant was duly reflected in the issue settle by the learned tribunal as issue no. 3: that the appellant successfully discharged the burden and substantiated before the tribunal that the drive of the offending vehicle/respondent No. 2 in the claim petition was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It is stated that though the driver of the offending vehicle stepped in the witness box, claimed to be a professional driver and presented a photocopy of his driving licence, yet the driving licence was found to be faked and in the name of a person other than the driver of the vehicle. The official of the office of Regional Transport Office, Srinagar, according to counsel for the appellant, in an unambiguous words deposed that the licence no. 59273/K, a photocopy of which was presently before the Learned Tribunal, was issued to one Farooq Ahmad Malla and not to the drive of the offending vehicle. It is argued that once the learned tribunal concluded that the driving licence was fake, the tribunal ought not to have held the appellant responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants and instead should have asked the owner of the vehicle who was guilty o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document