Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2451 of 2004 Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Respondent :- Ali Sher And Others Counsel for Appellant :- ,Ramesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.Dwivedi, ,Akhileshar Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for appellant and perused the record. None present for respondents.
2. This petition has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Badaun, whereby awarding a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- as compensation to the claimant/respondent along with 6% interest.
3. The brief facts which lead to the filing of the litigation was the death of Akbar Ali who was going on his cycle on 31.03.1997 and at that time bus No. HP480842 driven by Munne Lal was driving rashly and negligently. The deceased was a businessman and was earning Rs.6,000/- by selling dead cows and buffaloes he was the sole bread winner of his parents, his widow and his children. The vehicle was insured with the appellant and opponent no. 1 and 2, owner and driver appeared before the Tribunal contending that the vehicle was insured with - the vehicle was not involved in the accident the driver had valid driving licence that is how he was employed. The insurance company was joined as party respondent also filed its reply and contended that the driver had a fake driving licence therefore the insurance company would not be liable to indemnify the insurer. On these pleadings the Tribunal against the insurance company as far as the driving licence was concerned. The only stand taken was that licencing department Firzopur Punjab stated that the licence was not issued by its department and it was not renewed by them. and the Tribunal held against the driver however while discussing quntum in paragraph 13 the licencing authority was not examined. The driving licence was renewed by Etawah chowk Badaun A.R.T.O. the owner Aslam had seen this renewed licence therefore kept in on job the original was also shown to the owner and while seeing that it did not appear to be fake. In this view the decision of the apex court in United India Insurance co. Vs. Lahru and anothers AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1992. More particularly, paragraph 14 will not permit this court to reverse the finding.
4. The appeal on the evidence and finding on the ground No.2 just which is a partial finding of fact today being allowed but when this Court went into depth and perused the judgement, further it is found that the owner had taken all the caution in giving the vehicle to the driver in question.
5. The evidence led before the Tribunal shows that the driver had been issued the fresh renewal from Transport Advisor, Itta Chowk. It cannot be said to have given the vehicle but the owner had specified himself that there was a licence by A.R.T.O., Badaun and that is how the vehicle was given to all licenced driver.
6. The next question of compensation not required to interfered with as the rate of interest which could have been 9%, 6% going under the head of future perspective. In that view of the matter, just because there is partition in the multiplier, it cannot be said that just compensation has not been granted.
7. The Appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. This court is thankful to Sri Ramesh Singh for getting very old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.1.2019 Shubhankar