The burden of proof regarding the driving license of the driver lies with the owner of the vehicle, and insurance companies have a role in ensuring prompt payment of compensation to claimants.

G. P. MATHUR, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 6. 1. 2002 of the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/additional Judge, Court No. 19, Meerut, by which the claim petition filed by Brij Pal singh (respondent No. 1) was allowed and appellant insurance company was directed to pay Rs. 1,28,400 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

( 2 ) THE appeal was heard for admission on 15. 4. 2002 when notice was issued to the respondents and a direction was issued to summon the trial court record. In response to the notice Mr. V. P. Singh Charak and Mr. D. R. Choudhary put in appearance on behalf of Pramod Kumar, respondent no. 2. Thereafter with the consent of the parties, the appeal was finally heard at the admission stage.

( 3 ) BRIJ Pal Singh, respondent No. 1, filed a claim petition on 18. 2. 1998 under sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impleading Pramod Kumar and national Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the insurance company) as opposite parties to the petition. The case set up in the claim petition was that on 17. 11. 1997 claimant was going to Baraut in bus No. UHN 1082. At about 5. 45 p. m. truck No. DLIG-A 5419 which was being driven rashly and negligently at a very fast speed came from the opposite direction. The truck collided with the bus due to which two passengers sitting in the bus died and few others including the claimant received injuries. All the injured were removed to Government Hospital at Baraut where they were provided medical aid. The claimant subsequently got himself treated in a private nursing home. He received fracture in his leg and several other injuries. According to the claimant he was 30 years of age and earning about Rs. 5,000 per month from agriculture and working as conductor of a bus. It was prayed that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent be awarded as compensation to him.

( 4 ) PRAMOD Kumar (respondent No. 2 in the appeal), who is owner of the truck No. DL IG-A 5419, filed a written statement denying in toto the case set up in the claim petition. In additional pleas, it was stated that the truck was being driven at a low speed on the left side and the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus No. UHN 1082. It was further pleaded that the truck was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. , on the date of accident, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation was that of the insurer.

( 5 ) THE appellant insurance company also filed a written statement wherein the case set up in the claim petition was not admitted and it was pleaded that the claimant should prove the allegations made by him. Insurance of the truck was admitted and also the fact that the insurance policy was valid from 26. 11. 1996 to 25. 11. 1997. It was also pleaded that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the driver of the bus. In paras 31 to 33 of the written statement it was pleaded that without admitting involvement of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident and any liability thereto, the insured illegally entrusted the truck to a person who did not hold a valid and effective driving licence and the insured knowingly and intentionally committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. It was also pleaded that if the insured (owner of the truck) fails to discharge its obligations, or acts in collusion with the claimants, the insurer be allowed to contest the petition on all the grounds available to insured as per section 170 of the Act.

( 6 ) BRIJ Pal Singh, claimant, examined three witnesses and filed some documentary evidence. Pramod Kumar (owner of the truck) after filing his written statement did not appear in c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document