Uttarakhand Transport Corporation vs Om Prakash & Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

Since, both the appeals arises out of a same accident, therefore, same are being decided by a common judgment.

Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 passed by District Judge/ Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal in MACT No. 79 of 2007 and MACT No. 80 of 2007, Om Prakash & anr. vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & ors., whereby the claim of the claimants has been allowed and Insurance Companies i.e. National Insurance Company and Oriental Insurance Company were directed to pay the amount of compensation. However, Tribunal has granted 50% recoverable rights to the Oriental Insurance Company against the appellant-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation.

Brief facts, of the case, are that on 04.05.2007 Smt. Kalawati Devi (deceased) along with her son Vinod Kumar (deceased) were traveling from Delhi to Ramnagar in a bus bearing registration no. UA07J-0761. The said bus was allegedly driven by its driver rashly and negligently. At about 1:40 p.m., when bus reached at Moradabad, near village Usmanpur driver of the bus hit the truck bearing registration no. HR38D-3255, which was loaded with iron rods, as a result of which the iron rods which are being carried in a truck entered into the bus and pierced into the body of Kalawati Devi and Vinod, and both of them succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Post mortem was conducted at District Hospital Moradabad. It is alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus.

Owner of the bus filed its written statement. He submitted that on the day of incident, driver of the bus was having the valid driving license. It is also submitted, the bus was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company and compensation if any, is liable to be paid by the Insurance Company.

The Oriental Insurance Company also filed its written statement and contended that both the drivers of the vehicle was not having valid driving license, valid permit, registration. It is further contended that by violating terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

Owner of the truck also filed its written statement. He submitted that the truck was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. and the driver of the truck was not at fault rather accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It is further submitted that on the day of incident driver of the truck was having valid driving license and compensation if any, is liable to be paid by the Insurance Company.

National Insurance Company Ltd., also filed its written statement and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues. The learned Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants and directed both the Insurance Companies i.e. Oriental Insurance Company and National Insurance Company Ltd. to pay the compensation. However, the Tribunal has further granted 50% recoverable rights to the Oriental Insurance Company against the appellant-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation has preferred present appeals.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.

There is no dispute between the parties that accident took place on 04.05.2007 in which Smt. Kalawati Devi along with her son Vinod Kumar succumbed to the injuries at the spot and both the vehicles i.e. bus and truck were involved in the accident. It is also admitted fact that the bus was owned by the appellant- Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, driven by its driver Rajkumar and insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. As, all these issues were dealt and proved before the Tribunal by adducing oral and documentary evidence.

This Court, after considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the entire material on record, is of the opinion that the appellant-Uttarakhand Transport Corporation has failed to prove the fact that the driver of the bus, who was driving the bus rashly and negligently, on the date of incident was having a valid driving license. This fact has been proved by D.W.1 Gaurav Kumar, appeared on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company, who produced register in this regard which discloses that on the date of the incident no valid license has been issued in favour of the driver of the vehicle, namely, Raj Kumar. Further, the driver of the bus did not appear before the Tribunal to adduce evidence in support of his case. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on this issue needs no interference.

In view of the above discussion, there appears no error of law in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Both the appeals are fail and dismissed.

The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.