2019 Supreme(All) 1845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Alld. - Appellant
Vs.
Kishwar Ali And Others - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 364 of 2000
Decided On : 27-11-2019
For the Appellant : S.C.Srivastava
For the Respondent: Shailendra Pratap Singh
The main legal point established is the requirement for valid and effective driving licences, the burden of proof in establishing the validity of the licence, and the determination of just compensation in motor accident claims.
Headnote:
Driving Licence - Motor Accident Claims - M.A.C.T. No. 53 of 1997 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the non-existence of a driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle, the validity of the driving licence, and the amount of compensation awarded. The key legal provisions discussed include the requirement for valid and effective driving licences, burden of proof, and determination of just compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor accident claim where the appellant challenged the existence of a driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle and the amount of compensation awarded.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the tribunal's finding that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,28,000/- with 12% interest, and rejected the appeal due to lack of merit.
Issues: The issues included the existence of the driving licence, the amount of compensation, and contributory negligence by the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the driving licence was valid and effective, upheld the compensation amount, and rejected the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was rejected, and the office was directed to remit the appeal amount back to the tribunal for compliance.
JUDGMENT :
Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.
Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Shailendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for claimants-respondents no.1 and 2 and perused the judgment and order impugned.
2. This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, Ghaziabad in M.A.C.T. No. 53 of 1997.
3. The only legal point urged before this Court pertains to the non-existence of any driving licence purportedly held or possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle opposite party no.3-Udaiveer Tyagi (Driver of Truck No. U.G.U.-8058).
4. Contention is that in this case, as per Form No.54, there is no mention of any such licence having been issued in favour of respondent no.3-Udaiveer Tyagi. It is specific testimony of the witness for the concerned transport department that there is no mention of any renewal as such of any such licence in question in the relevant register meant for renewal of the licences, and in the wake of above, claim is that obviously it cannot be held that the truck driver was holding or possessing a valid and effective driving licence and he ever got the same renewed at any point of time. The driving licence produced is fake and not genuine.
5. Apart from that, the learned counsel has also challenged the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,28,000/-along with 12 % interest claiming it to be excessive under facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Counsel for the claimants-respondents has refuted the aforesaid contention by claiming that the witness of the concerned transport department was itself brought by the Insurance Company. As per his testimony, it is nowhere established that the licence is fake. The total exercise required to be undergone in this context was not followed and mere perfunctory reference of certain missing entry in certain register meant and kept for renewal of the licences alone was made before the tribunal that would by no sketch of imagination establish things satisfactorily branding the driving licence to be fake and illegal. In that regard, the tribunal was justified when it held that there was non production of the concerned register meant for renewal of the driving licences and this indicates that the burden of proof as was required to be discharged by the Insurance Company regarding fact pertaining to non renewal of the driving license in question, thus it being fake driving license, was not properly discharged by it. In such scenario, the insurance company itself is to be blamed. Nothing prevented the appellant-insurance company from proving the fact of driving licence being fake. But it tried to establish this particular fact merely by leading verbal testimony and not producing the relevant register before the tribunal.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the impugned award dated 18.12.1999, whereby overall compensation amount Rs. 1,28,000/-along with accrued interest @ 12% per annum has been awarded to the claimants-respondent nos.1 and 2Kishwar Ali and Rahul Khan.
8. But before proceeding with this case, it would be appropriate in the fitness of things that a sketch of the incidents leading to the filing of the claim petition before the tribunal and this appeal before this Court be referred here for the sake of convenience.
9. Bare perusal of the record shows that the accident in question allegedly took place on 20.12.1996, when Smt. Neksee (deceased), who was going to purchase fodder for her animals along with her father-in-law sustained injuries by rash and negligent driving (of the offending vehicle) at 11:30 a.m. at place 100 feeta, tri-crossing, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad within Police Station Singhani Gate by Truck No. U.G.U.-8058, thus causing serious injuries to her. She was taken to the government hospital at Ghaziabad and got admitted, where she succumbed to her injuries on 21.12.1996 around 3 a.m. in the n