Judgment on Board

1. The appellants / owner and driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG-09 / B-0766 have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 94/2017 dated 19.06.2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,24.475/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account injuries sustained by claimant- Anand @ Anandram Sahu / respondent No.1.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29.06.2017 at around 11-12:00 pm motorcycle of claimant- Anand @ Anandram Sahu was dashed by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG-09 / B-0766 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’). In said accident, the claimant sustained injuries including fracture of right shoulder and skull. The claimant remained hospitalized for 07 days and surgery was done. He claimed a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/-.

3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. They pleaded that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent.

4. Insurance Company filed separate reply and took plea that the driver of the offending vehicle Truck did not have valid driving licence and fitness certificate and there was contributory negligence.

5. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter award was passed.

6. Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants / owner and driver would submit that the fitness certificate was seized by police and this fact is evident from seizure memo vide Ex. A-7. He would submit that on the date of accident, the fitness certificate was effective. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that on the date of accident, there was no valid permit and fitness certificate with the offending vehicle. He would submit that the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal appears to be erroneous and contrary to the material available on record. He would pray to set aside the judgment and award dated 19.06.2019 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company would oppose. He would submit that the owner of the offending vehicle failed to submit fitness certificate before the learned Claims Tribunal. It is argued that the Insurance Company examined one Imlesh Ramteke, Assistant, New India Assurance Company, who categorically stated that as the offending vehicle was a commercial one, therefore, permit and fitness certificate were mandatory. This witness further stated that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid fitness and in this regard, this witness has placed information granted by the Public Information Officer, Regional Transport Office, Kabirdham dated 21.12.2018 vide Ex. D-2. This document states that on the date of accident i.e. 29.06.2017, there was no valid fitness certificate with the offending vehicle. This witness was cross-examined by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, but the witness remained consistent. The learned Claims Tribunal has considered this issue in paragraph no. 13 of its judgment and held that on the date of accident, there was no fitness certificate with the offending vehicle and consequently exonerated the Insurance Company and fastened liability with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

8. Mr. Kanhaiya Lal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 /claimant would support the judgment and award dated 19.06.2019 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal.

9. The issue with regard to the requirement of a fitness certificate is no more res-integra as the Full bench of the High Court of Kerala in the matter of Pareed Pillai v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Ernakulam reported in AIR 2019 KERAL