Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.19 of 2001 Appellant :- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Alld. Respondent :- Bhanuvendra Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- M.P.Sarraf
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order impugned. Sri M. Mishra has absented himself.
2. This appeal, at the behest of New India Assurance Company Limited, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 29.8.1998 passed by VII Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.135 of 1993 awarding a sum of Rs.2,18,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% in favour of the claimant- respondent(s).
3. It is proved by the insurance company by leading cogent evidence that the driving license of the driver was not renewed which is clear from the evidence of the A.R.T.O. Jhansi. In that view of the matter, the finding of fact that he was having a valid driving license, cannot be accepted and the said finding is against the evidence produced by the insurance company.
4. Prima facie, the insurance company has proved that the driver did not have license to drive vehicle in question.This Court is not going into that fact whether it was light motor vehicle or heavy motor vehicle. The amount has already been deposited and which might have been disbursed to the claimant. The only way the insurance company can be benefited is granting them recovery rights from the owner of the vehicle in question 2 by way of the mode suggested by the Apex Court in Pappu and others Versus Vinod Kumar Lamba and others, reported in AIR 2018 SC 592.Therefore, the recovery rights will have to be granted as it is prima facie proved that the driver did not have valid driving license.
5. The appellant shall be at liberty to recover the amount from the owner if it proves that the owner was also aware of the driver of the said vehicle namely two seater No.UAU-9051 was aware that Suresh Kushwaha, s/o Sri Ram Dayal, had no proper driving licence to drive the vehicle.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The cross-objection is dismissed.
7. This Court is thankful to Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant for getting this very old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Irshad