Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs Parvati Bai And Ors

P. Sam Koshy, J

Present is an appeal by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 07/02/2011 passed by the

learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Surguja, District Ambikapur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.71/2009.

Vide the said impugned award, the Tribunal in a death case has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,45,992/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the

date of application.

The facts of the case in brief is that, the deceased in the instant case Ramprasad met with an accidental death on 11/04/2008 when he was hit by a

Truck bearing registration No.CG-04-JA-4073 owned by respondent No.3 and driven by respondent No.4. The legal representatives of the deceased

filed the claim application which stood decided by the impugned award. The liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the

Insurance Company since the vehicle was duly insured during the relevant time.

The sole contention of the counsel for the appellant is that, the liability has been wrongly fastened upon the Insurance Company in as much as the

driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time did not have a valid license and the license that he was having was a fake license. He

further submits that, the license which the driver was having was issued on the basis of license which was earlier issued to someone else which by

itself establishes the fact that, the license which was issued was a fake license. The counsel for the appellant in support of his contention refers to the

statement of the witness examined on behalf of the Insurance Company i.e. Rajesh Kumar Bhargav, a person from the office of the R.T.O., Raipur

who had stated that, the original license was infact issued in the name of some other person. Thus it was contended that the subsequent issuance of

license was not proper and that the original license number reflected in the license of respondent No.4 was not issued in his name. Thus, the license

which he was having was liable to be treated as a fake license. The counsel for the appellant further submits that, once when the original license itself

was not proper, the subsequent renewal of the same by the office of R.T.O. would not be valid and it would still remain to be a fake license.

Having heard the contentions of the counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the statement of the officer of the R.T.O. it would reflect that, the

witness has not said that the license which the respondent No.4 was possessing was not issued from the office of R.T.O., Raipur. It only refers to the

fact that, the original license number which is reflected in the license of respondent No.4 was perhaps issued to some Sushma Mishra and the

documents and the registers during that period were not available in the office of R.T.O., Raipur.

Further what is also reflected is that, there is being due renewal of the license which the respondent No.4 was having from the office of R.T.O.,

Raipur in as much as the license to drive the heavy vehicles was valid initially from 07/01/2005 to 06/01/2008 and thereafter from 06/01/2008 to

07/01/2011 i.e. the period during which the accident had occurred.

Once when the witness from the office of the R.T.O. has admitted the fact that, the license was issued from the office of R.T.O. and that it was

renewed periodically, this Court does not find any fault on part of the owner. It is settled position of law that, the owner cannot go deep into the

verification aspect of the license which the driver has possessed. From perusal of the record it shows that, the license had also been periodically

renewed from the office of R.T.O. from time to time which was bonafidely accepted by the owner. Therefore, he cannot be found fault with and the

Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability indemnifying the owner.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any strong case made out calling for an interference with the impugned

award.

The appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected.