Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2577 of 2015 Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Shahjade And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Khare Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Gupta,Suhas Subhash Mehta
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Order on Civil Misc. Application
Appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. for taking verification report from the A.R.T.O., Gazipur in Form 54 as additional evidence of driving licence of driver of offending vehicle namely, Bulero Jeep No.UP-61-S-2200.
In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is averred that appellant appointed investigator Yogesh Kumar Srivastava to verify the driving licence bearing No.36945/Mau/04 issued from the Licensing Authority, Mau and on verification, it was found that original driving licence of driver of offending vehicle Jeep was not issued from A.R.T.O, Mau.
Appellant has not averred any fact as to why he could not get the driving licence verified during the pendency of the claim petition nor there is any averment in the affidavit that appellant had taken due diligence to verify the validity of the driving licence during pendency of the claim but despite the best efforts made by the appellant, the driving licence could not be verified.
From a perusal of averments made in the affidavit, it is apparent that no ground to accept the documents enclosed with the application as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. has been made out.
Consequently, the application of the appellant is rejected.
Order On Appeal
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of the present appeal, appellant-insurance company has challenged the judgement and award dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.08, Varanasi in M.A.C.P. No. 176 of 2014 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,51,000/- along with 7% interest as compensation to the claimant/respondent no.1.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver of Bulero Jeep No.UP-61-S-2200 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in respect of driving licence is illegal and not sustainable.
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent submits that Tribunal, on the basis of material on record, has held that driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence. He contends that application to take verification report from A.R.T.O., Mau in respect of driving licence of driver of offending vehicle has been rejected by this Court and as such, there was no material on record wherefrom it can be said that driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not genuine.
I have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence. Insurance company did not lead any evidence to demonstrate that driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake. Application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for taking verification report from A.R.T.O., Mau in respect of driving licence of driver of offending vehicle has already been rejected by this Court.
Thus, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of merits and is hereby, rejected. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Sattyarth