JUDGMENT Binod Kumar Roy and M.L. Singhal, JJ.
1. This is Insurance Company's appeal against an order granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,02,000 only with interest @ 14% per annum. Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that issue No. 3 had been wrongly decided, and accordingly, this appeal is fit to be admitted.
Issue No. 3 reads thus :
"Whether the driver of the said bus had a valid driving licence at that time?"
2. This issue has been discussed and answered as follows :
Issue No. 3. The owner of the vehicle involved in the accident O.P. No. 1 did not appear despite sufficient service. He was the only person who was in a position to say whether the driver of the Bus had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. However, the burden lies on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver of the Bus had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. This burden has not been discharged by O. P. No. 3. I, therefore, hold that the driver of the Bus had a valid driving licence at the time of accident.
3. On the face of it, the argument looks attractive but on a deeper probe by us, it has no legs to stand which will appear from the following facts.
4. Paragraph 31 of the written statement of the appellant reads thus :
"That the owner of the said vehicle is bound under the law as also in terms and conditions of the policy of insurance as incorporated therein to furnish the details in respect of alleged accident, Registration Certificate and other connected documents of the vehicle including valid driving licence of the driver of the said vehicle at the time of alleged accident, failing which it shall be presumed that the said vehicle was driven in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, as also in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and in that case, no liability can be fasten against the answering opposite parry." The verification part of the written statement reads thus :
"I. V. K. Dutta, Divisional Manager of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.. O.P. No. 3 do hereby verify that the contents of this written statement are true to my knowledge based on company's record and information received and legal advice availed, which I believe to be correct.
Verified at Meerut on this ................................. day of .........................., 1996.
For and on behalf of The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd.
Sd./- Illegible Divisional Manager O.P. No. 3"
5. In our view, the statements made in paragraph 31 have not been properly verified in accordance with law. They are vague, without disclosing from whom the vital informations in regard to not having a valid driving licence of the driver of the said vehicle at the time of the alleged incident, were derived, and in this view of the matter, the appellant is not entitled to any relief.
6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed summarily.