Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 995 of 1999
Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Alld.
Respondent :- Subhagi Devi And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- A.K.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.K.Gupta
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for appellant and perused the record. None has appeared for claimant or owner though they are well served.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.1999 and 3.07.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Special Judge, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 149 of 1995 awarding a sum of Rs.1,60,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as compensation to the claimant.
3. The insurance company has raised the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have proper and valid driving licence, the licence which was produced by the driver was certified by R.T.O. office of Hyderabad to be not issued by them. It is submitted by Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for appellant that finding of fact is just exchange vehicle was insured with them there is no infraction of Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1988') is bad. The driver of the vehicle has not been called in the witness-box so as to prove the fact that he was aware that licence was fake. The finding of fact in issue No.3 has been founded fault with. However, Sri Venketshwar Rao has been examined as witness but he has not been examined. The driver can also have been examined which onus was on the insurance company. Sri Venketeshwar Rao has not been the officer of R.T.O.
4. In that view of the matter, the finding is against the insurance company. However, I do not agree with the reasoning given by the Tribunal passed on A.I.R. 1997, Madhya Pradhesh P.66, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prem Narayan Sahu, held that even if there is no licence, a person can drive the vehicle and insurance company will be liable. However, in the facts of this case, it is not proved that the driver did not have proper driving licence.
5. In this case it has not been proved that the owner was aware that the vehicle was being given to a person who did not have valid and proper driving licence. The fact that the licence was contended to be fake was in fact not proved to be fake. The finding returned by the Tribunal cannot be founded fault with as the insurance company fail to prove that in fact the licence was not issued by the concerned R.T.O., no officer of the concerned R.T.O. was examined. The person who was examined as a witness of the insurance company was not an R.T.O. officer was a private investigator. In that view of the matter and in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Raja Ram and others, AIR 2018 Sc 3789.
6. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated.
7. This Court is thankful to Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for appellant for getting very old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Shubhankar