IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof regarding a driver's valid licence lies with the vehicle's owner, absolving the Insurance Company from liability if not established.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

The instant Misc. Appeal has been directed against the award dated 25.07.2009 passed in Compensation Case No.29 of 2005 by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa whereby the learned Tribunal had ordered the amount of Rs.3,40,500/- as a compensation awarded to the claimant No.1 which was to be paid by the O.P.No.3- the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chaibasa with interest thereon 6% p.a. from the date of filing the application till realization of the said amount.

2. The instant appeal has been directed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award aggrieved from the liability which has been fastened upon Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation in the award on the grounds that though in the written statement the owner of the vehicle had taken this plea that the offending vehicle was insured by the Appellant-Insurance Company and it was being driven with a valid registration certificate and driving licence yet on behalf of the owner or driver of the vehicle no driving licence of the offending vehicle was produced and the learned Tribunal had shifted the burden of proof wrongly upon the Insurance Company to prove the breach of the policy that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and in spite of directing the owner to pay the compensation had saddled the appellant with the liability to pay compensation on the very ground that the offending vehicle was insured by the Appellant-Insurance Company.

3. For disposal of this Misc. Appeal, the following point of determination is being framed:

Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid or effective driving licence at the time of the motor accident ? if not its effect.

4. The brief facts culled out from the claim case are that the claimant Smt. Munaka Devi and her two children Pradeep Thakur and Sunil Thakur had moved the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal claiming the compensation amount on the death of deceased Karu Thakur, the husband of claimant No.1 Smt. Munaka Devi and father of claimant No.2 and 3 Pradeep Thakur and Sunil Thakur who had met a motor accident with the offending TVS Victor Motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-06A-4778 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Jaspal Digi being O.P.No.2 in the Claim Petition.

5. On behalf of O.P.No.1 & 2 the owner and driver of the vehicle in their written statement had opposed the Claim Petition that the Claim petition was barred for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. It was also further asserted that the claimants have concealed the material fact in regard to the said accident. In fact, the accident took place due to the mistake of deceased Karu Thakur himself who was moving in middle of the road and a Truck was coming from the opposite direction which dashed to the deceased. The said motorcycle was not being driven by Jaspal Digi. He has been impleaded party unnecessarily.

5.1 It is also further asserted that the O.P.No.1 was the registered owner of the vehicle in question and the documents relating to the vehicles were up-to-date such as registration, driving licence, tax token, insurance etc.

5.2 It was also further asserted that the vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Company, Chaibasa and the insurance was valid till 23.07.2007. If any liability arises out of the motor vehicle accident, for the same insurance company is liable because no violation of the terms and condition of insurance policy has been made by the O.P.No.1 & 2.

6. On behalf of the O.P.No.3-National Insurance Company appellant herein in the written statement it has been averred that as per information of responding Insurance Company it was Jaspal Digi who was driving the motorcycle at the relevant time of accident and was having no driving licence to drive the same. As such there is a gross violation of the terms and conditions of