Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 923 of 2004 Appellant :- New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Ravin Saini And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Saurabh Srivastava
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order impugned.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., challenges the judgment and award dated 2.7.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') awarding sum of Rs. 92,022/- with 6% rate of interest.
3. The appellant does not challenge the accident having taken place and the involvement of the vehicle. The fact that mini truck was on chauraha and the motorcyclist came from the side road did not take proper care and caution and dashed with the stationery mini truck insured by the appellant. The condition is raised that the driver of the motorcycle which is a lighter vehicle having greater manoeuvrability and, therefore, he was more negligent than the driver of the truck. It is submitted that the Tribunal committed and error in holding the driver of the truck solely responsible for accident.
4. It is further submitted that the appellant proved that photocopy of the driving license of the charge-sheeted truck driver was found to be fake as no such license in name of the said driver was traceable in this regard and a certificate to the said effect dated 22.12.2000 was supplied to them. The record for the said period was summoned and which were produced. It is submitted that the clerk of R.T.O. concerned was produced and this fact has been proved. The testimony of Rakesh Kumar proved that the photocopy of the license of respondent No.2 was a fake documents and, therefore, the Insurance Company should have been exonerated or, in the alternative, should have been granted recovery rights. Heavy reliance has been placed on the decision in National Insurance Company limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3 SCC 297
5. It is further submitted that the claimant-injured did not suffer any permanent private disablement despite that huge compensation has been paid.
6. While going through the record, it is very clear that the clerk of the R.T.O. concerned who was produced has stated that the license of the driver of the said vehicle was not available. The document at page 13-G shows that it was the license of the driver of the said vehicle. All that the clerk of the R.T.O. concerned conveyed was that there was no record with him. However, respondent No.2 filed no reply.
7. It is submitted that the submission of R.T.O. concerned should have been accepted as there is no finding whether the license was a fake license or not.
8. It was not proved that the driving license was the fake driving license. I am supported in my view by the decision in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Poonam Kesarwani and others, 2008 LawSuit (All) 1557.
9. In view of the above, this appeal sans merits and is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 DKS