1. By way of these appeals, the appellants- original opponents have challenged the common judgement and award dated 31.01.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Auxi.), Amreli, in M.A.C.P. Nos. 30, 31 and 466 of 1997, whereby the tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions filed by the present appellants.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 13.11.1996 one accident occurred and due to the said accident, the present appellants sustained grievous injuries, therefore, they filed claim petitions being M.A.C.P. Nos. 30, 31 and 466 of 1997 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and dismissed the claim petitions against which the present appeals are filed by the appellants-original claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. Therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeals and has prayed to dismiss the appeals, as being without merit.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The tribunal while considering the case of the claimants in paragraph Nos.22 and 30 has observed as under:-
“22. Now, it will be material to find out, that what was the purpose of the owner of the said jeep, to conceal, that in fact who was driving the said jeep at the material time of an accident; and the answer of the same, can be found out from the FIR dated 16.11.93 (xerox) exh. 26, lodged by Bharatbhai Mohanbhai who is also claimant of the main case M.A.C.P. No. 30 of 1997, touching to the accident. The said FIR speaks of the fact, that the material time of the said accident, he was driving the said jeep and with him, the third opponent, one Rohitbhai Keshubhai, Atulbhai Keshubhai , Arunaben Bharatbhai were there. If, the said statement made in the said FIR, by claimant Bharatbhai Mohanbhai, which was instant and first in time, is to be accepted, then the said testimony and the affidavit exh. 52, of the owner of the same or of the said jeep, which are subsequent in time, cannot be accepted and at the same time, to be treated, far from the truth. Only purpose of concealing the said fact and that particularly, through the said testimony (C.W. no. 1 Exh. 25), can be that the said claimant Bharatbhai Mohanbhai, must not holding the driving license to drive the said jeep and as the said third opponent was holding such license, in the place of the claimant Bharatbhai Mohanbhai, the said third opponent, was brought and shown driving the said jeep. In fact, at the material time of the said accident, not the third opponent, but the claimant Bharatbhai Mohanbhai was driving the said jeep, and only such conclusion can be arrived and to be accepted for resolving the point at issue.
30. When a person at the material time of an accident driving the motor vehicle without valid license to drive the same or the said vehicle then the parties liable to pay the compensation can be exonerated from the liability to meet the claim of whatsoever nature and one can fortify the said view from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, given in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD V. MANDAR MADHAV TAMBE, reported in 1996(2) GLR., at page 614. As far as present case is concerned, in fact, at the material time of an accident, the claimant Bharatbhai Mohanbhai Bhaliya, of the main M.A.C.P. No. 30/97, was driving the said jeep car,without holding any license, whatsoever to drive the same or the said jeep car and not the third opponent handed over the same or the license, to drive the said jeep, without holding any license, whatsoever, to drive the same or the said jeep car and not the third opponent Jagdishbhai Jethabhai Jiyani, of the main case M.A.C.P. No. 30 /97 and at the same time, claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 466/97 and eventhough, he was holding valid license, to drive the said jeep car, handed over the same or the said jeep car to the said claimant of the main case, Bharatbhai Mohanbhai Bhaliya, to drive, the said jeep car: and in that case ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Gian Chandra & Ors. Reported in 1998(2) GCD 10 (MAC) (S.C.), at page No.10, can be said squarely applicable, as the said para materia case, court observed and held that the Insurance Company is exonerated from the liablity to meet the claims of third party, if, the vehicle is handed over to a person, holding no license.
6. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error in dismissing the claim petitions of the appellants. Apart from that learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to show anything from the record to take a different view in the matter. However, I am of the view that it was not necessary for the Tribunal to impose the cost upon the appellants. Therefore, the judgement and order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside only qua the extent of imposition of cost on the appellants.
7. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
pawan [K.S.JHAVERI,J.]