Point of Law: Motor Accident Claims - Rash and negligent driving - Without Driving licence - Liability of insurance company – If a driver had a fake driving licence at the time of the accident then the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.

1. Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 31.12.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag (for short “Tribunal”) on a Claim Petition bearing File No. 30/2012 titled Safia Rehman and Others vs. Tawseef Ahmad Dar and Others, directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 29,84000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization, on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. A claim petition, as is discernible from perusal of the file, was filed by respondents 1 to 5 before the Tribunal on 02.08.2012 averring therein that deceased Reyaz Ahmad Dar S/o Mohammad Akram Dar R/o Naagam, Kokernag aged 30 years, died in an accident, which took place on 04.05.2012 at Peer Takiya due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle, bearing Registration No. JK-03B-3909 which was insured with appellant Insurance Company, Claimants/Respondents 1 to 5 sought compensation in the amount of Rs. 72,00,000/-

3. Appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim before the Tribunal on the ground that the driver had no effective driving license (D/L) on the date of accident.

4. The Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, framed Issues for determination, which are:

(1) Whether the deceased namely Reyaz Ahmad Dar S/o Mohammad Akram Dar R/o Naagam, Kokernag, while driving his motorcycle and reached at Peer Takiya was hit by vehicle bearing Registration No. JK-03B-3909 and sustained multiple injuries on various parts of his body and was taken on the hospital but ultimately succumbed to the injuries and died on 05th May, 2012? OPP

(2) Whether the accident was caused on 04th May, 2012 duet to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1? OPP

(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent? OPP

(4) Whether the respondent no. 1 not having valid and effective D/L and other allied documents o the date of accident and as such there is no intentional breach of policy terms and conditions committed by respondents No. 2? OPR3

(5) Relief. OP Parties.

5. Claimants produced and examined three witnesses before the Tribunal; besides claimants/respondent no 1. Appellant Insurance Company failed to examine any witness.

6. By impugned Award, the Tribunal found claimants/respondents entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 29,84,000/- along with 6% interest per annum.

7. Heard and considered.

8. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company has stated that the Tribunal erred in passing impugned Award as the driver of offending vehicle had no effective Driving License on the date of accident. It is contended that appellant Company pleaded before the Tribunal to summon ARTO, Poonch, for which requisite expenses were also deposited, but the Tribunal did not summon ARTO, Poonch, as witness and closed the evidence of appellant Insurance company on 22.11.2014. It is stated that Registering Authority, i.e. ARTO, Doda, reported that the record pertaining to the basic driving licence of driver of offending vehicle was missing for which report was lodged at P/P Doda. ARTO Poonch reported that the renewal date in driving licence was fake. In this regard learned counsel for appellant has invited attention of this Court to communication dated 19.8.2014 (Annexure B with the Appeal) to contend fakeness of driving licence of driver of offending vehicle. According to learned counsel, the said communication was also placed on record of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was requested to summon ARTO, Poonch, as a witness for which expenses were also deposited, but the said request was not allowed.

9. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance company states that assuming without admitting that the original driving licence is genuine, even then its renewal was fake, as such, the driver was not competent to drive the offending vehicle and, thus, the owner has violated terms and conditions of the policy by engaging a driver who had fak