1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 24.01.2001, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar, in M.A.C.P. No.407 of 1998, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.92,600/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the original claimant was an Ayurved Doctor by profession, having his Clinic on Nari Road and on the day of incident, after closing his clinic, he and his compounder Shri Umedsinhbhai, were standing on the side of the road. At that time opponent No.1 came there by driving scooter No.GJ-4, L-1646 in rash and negligent manner, in excessive speed and dashed with the respondent No.1, and caused injury to the respondent No.1. Therefore, the claimant filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.407of 1998 before the Tribunal for compensation.
2.1. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for the parties and after perusing the record, decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding the Insurance Company from making payment of compensation. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that though subsequent owner was called for to produce driving licence, the same was not produced on record. The Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company from making payment of compensation, as the the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling was a 'goods vehicle' and therefore, it could not be saddled with any liability in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Rattani & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 75.
4. I have heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant and perused the materials on record. From the record, it is clear that the driver of the scooter has not produced on record the licence though specifically called for to produce the same. The Tribunal has therefore erred in assuming that the appellant had made default in producing the valid licence. Under the circumstances, the appellant- Insurance Company could not be held liable in view of the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited (Supra). Hence, the appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is quashed only qua the extent of imposition of liability on the appellant- Insurance Company to make payment of compensation. If the amount deposited by the appellant – Insurance Company has not been withdrawn by the original claimant, the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. It is, however, observed that if the amount deposited before the Tribunal is already withdrawn by the original claimant, the same shall not be recovered from the original claimant and the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] vijay