Accident – License – Non production of license by driver of offending vehicle does not discharge insurance company of its burden to prove their contention of invalidity of license – Insurance Company held liable

Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:- Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants Smt.Geeta Devi and five other legal representatives of Sh.Birham Parkash – deceased had brought a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the averments that deceased Sh.Birham Parkash running a grocery shop at village Nanu Kalan on 3.4.2009 had gone to Rewari in a three wheeler auto rickshaw bearing registration No.HR-47A-3184 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle); that at about 4:00 p.m. when he was returning in that very three wheeler after making purchases, then the said vehicle over turned due to its rash and negligent driving by its driver Sanjay – respondent No.2; that Sh.Birham Parkash had suffered injuries in that mishap; that he was shifted to Pushpanjali Hospital for treatment but he succumbed to the injuries on the next day i.e. on 4.4.2009; that an FIR No.136 dated 16.7.2009 for the offences under Sections 279, 304 and 120-B was registered at Police Station Pataudi, claiming compensation of Rs.20 lacs impleading owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle as respondents.

2. Notice of the claim petition was given to respondents. Respondents No.1, 1A, 1-B, 2 and 3 put in appearance and filed separate written statements contesting the claim petition praying for its dismissal.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-47-A-3184 by respondent No.2 resulting into death of Braham Parkash as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation and if so to what extent and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether respondent No.2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence? OPR(3).

4. Whether the insured violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR(3).

5. Relief.

4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

5. In support of their case, the claimant No.1 Geeta Devi appeared as PW1, Munish Kumar, Registration Clerk, Office of RTA, Rewari as PW2, ASI Sheetal Dass as PW3, Sh.Vikas as PW4, Sh.Tajul Haq as PW5 and Sh.Lokesh Bhati, Criminal Ahlmad as PW6.

6. On the other hand, the respondents have examined respondent No.1B Om Pal as RW1 and respondent No.2 – Sanjay as RW2 besides tendering documents.

7. After hearing arguments, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and compensation of Rs.5,01,500/- was awarded to the claimants/petitioners payable by respondent No.1-A, 2 and 3 jointly and severally with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization.

8. This award left the insurance company aggrieved and it has approached this Court by way of filing the present appeal praying that the same be accepted, the impugned award be set aside and the appellant – insurance company be absolved of its liability to pay compensation to the claimant.

9. Notice of the appeal was given to respondents, who put in appearance through counsel except respondent No.8.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

11. The first and foremost argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant was that the accident in this case had taken place on 3.4.2009, whereas the FIR was registered on 16.7.2009 i.e. after a period of more than three months; that the driver of the offending vehicle allegedly involved in the accident in the written reply filed by him had taken the stand that he had not remained as driver on the offending vehicle at any point of time under employment of respondent No.1 to 1B and had not caused any accident, therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that such driver had caused the accident by rash and negligent driving, rather the offending vehicle in question and respondent No.2 as its alleged driver were wrongly introduced by the claimants just to get compensation.

12. It may be mentioned here that this very contenti