New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Sukhvinder Kaur

Rakesh Garg, J.—Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed the claim application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of the death of one Surjit Singh in a motor vehicular accident on 17.02.2012 caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration No. PB13N-5731 by its driver i.e. respondent No. 4. The said application was contested by the appellant-Insurance Company as well as driver and owner of the offending vehicle. After considering the evidence on record and the arguments raised, vide impugned Award dated 22.04.2014 the Tribunal held that Surjit Singh died on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident on 17.02.2012 on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 7,16,972 payable by the appellant as well as respondents No. 4 and 5 jointly and severally. While holding so, the Tribunal further held that there was no collusion of the claimants in filing the claim application with the driver/owner of the offending vehicle and further there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as driver of the vehicle in question was possessing a valid driving licence at the relevant time.

Not satisfied from the aforesaid Award, the Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in deciding issue No. 3 while holding that driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. According to the learned counsel, driving licence produced on record as Ex. RB was initially issued from the Licencing Authority, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and was renewed by the Licencing Authority, Patiala. Learned counsel has further argued that as per the verification report dated 26.09.2013 of the Investigator appointed by the appellant, the licence originally issued from Raipur was fake as according to the verification report, the said licence was not issued by their office. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the driving licence Ex. RB is fake, as renewal of a fake driving licence will not make it valid and thus, there being a breach of the terms of the policy, the appellant was not liable to pay the compensation amount.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the appellant got verified the facts from the office of Licencing Authority, Raipur by deputing an Investigator who submitted his report attached as Annexure A-2 and also a certificate (Annexure A-3) with the application for leading additional evidence. However, the verification report submitted by the appellant-Insurance Company has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal on the ground that the same has not been proved in accordance with law. The appellant has also filed an application to lead additional evidence submitting that these facts could not be brought on record before the Tribunal despite exercise of due diligence by the appellant-Insurance Company and moreover, the appellant cannot be held to be at fault as it summoned the witness from Raipur and it was for the Tribunal to enforce the presence of such a witness; and in view thereof the impugned Award of the Tribunal cannot be sustained to the extent of holding the appellant liable to pay the amount of compensation. The Insurance Company also summoned the concerned Clerk of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur along with original record of the driving licence in question, as proved from summons attached as Annexure A-1.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned Award.

At this stage, it may be noticed that no case is made out to allow the appellant to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage, as the appellant has taken a specific stand with regard to validity of the driving licence of driver of the vehicle in question and a specific issue was framed in this regard and it was for the appellant-Insurance Company to prove the aforesaid issue by leading cogent evidence. Despite the fact that appellant deputed an Investigator who submitted his report Ex. RL and Ex. RM with regard to the fact that the licence in question was not issued by the Licencing Authority, Raipur; yet the appellant failed to prove the aforesaid report by producing the aforesaid Investigator in the witness box.

In the application for leading additional evidence, no explanation has been given as to why the said Investigator was not produced. Despite the fact that the appellant-Insurance Company has raised various pleas in its written statement and even onus to prove issues No. 3 and 4 was upon the appellant, yet, not even a single person has been produced by the appellant even to formally prove its case. The grievance of the appellant that it was for the Tribunal to enforce the attendance of witness, is not sustainable at this stage, as the appellant never sought any remedy earlier seeking to enforce the attendance of witness and now it is too late to argue that appellant is not at fault and it was the duty of the Court to force the witness to step into the witness box. Thus, the certificate and report of the Investigator Ex. RL and Ex. RM have remained unproved.

At this stage, it may also be noticed that the certificate (Annexure A-3) itself is not sufficient to hold that the driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle was fake, as the said certificate simply states that the driving licence was not issued by the said office. From the aforesaid certificate, it cannot be presumed that the driving licence initially issued was fake. Moreover, it is not in dispute that driving licence, as issued originally, was later-on renewed validly.

No other argument has been raised.

Thus, the instant appeal is dismissed being without any merit.