Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 175 (JHR)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Md. Jan

2001-03-05

GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body2001
ORDER Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Heard and perused the Lower Court records. Compensation Case No. 94 of 1994 was filed tinder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by respondents 1 to 5, who are parents, brothers and sister of deceased, Sabir Khan. On 8.4.1994, while going to purchase motor spare from his workshop "Jayanta Motor Works" he was dashed by a truck (MBM 3099) coming from opposite direction and died. He was 18 years old and was working as Motor Mechanic in the aforesaid Workshop and was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. By impugned judgment and award, 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, assessed a sum of Rs. 1,68,000/- with interest (c) 12% per annum payable by- Insurance Company to the claimants. 2. It was established that accident took place on account of rash and negligent drive of the truck. In the present appeal, filed under Section 173 of the Act, appellant-Insurance Company has mainly raised question as to whether it was responsible to indemnify the owners liability to pay compensation under the Act. According to it, driver of the truck involve in the accident was not holding valid driving licence. In its written statement filed by Insurance Company in the Claim case on 29.7.1995, it was stated that claimants must produce or get the driving licence of the truck driver, besides other papers produced, failing which it would be presumed that vehicle was being driven against the Act and Rules as well as term of the Insurance policy. On 24.11.1995, Insurance Company filed a petition for a direction to the claimants to produce the said driving licence and if they fail to produce the same, it may be presumed that vehicle was being driven against Rules and terms of the Insurance Policy and the insurer was not liable to pay any compensation, on which no order was passed. Further, in the rejoinder, dated 16.5.1996 to the petition filed by claimants on 18.4.1996, Insurance Company stated that inspite of its petition, dated 24.11.1995 claimants failed to produce the driving licence. In the meantime, Insurance Company deputed a surveyor to investigate and submit report regarding verification of driving licence in question, which was not found to be in order. Further, in the rejoinder, dated 16.5.1996 to the petition filed by claimants on 18.4.1996, Insurance Company stated that inspite of its petition, dated 24.11.1995 claimants failed to produce the driving licence. In the meantime, Insurance Company deputed a surveyor to investigate and submit report regarding verification of driving licence in question, which was not found to be in order. According to records of District Transport Officer, Ranchi, it was found that driver Sukra Oraon, in his driving licence No. 1180/87 issued by DTO, Ranchi, was allowed to driver light motor vehicle only and, so, he was not authorised to drive heavy public goods vehicle. Relevant term of the Insurance Policy was, therefore, violated and the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. 3. In the claim case, owner of the vehicle appeared, but neither filed any written statement nor contested the case. On behalf of claimants two witnesses were examined, who were also cross-examined by Insurance Company. 4. A perusal of the entire order-sheet of the claim case reveals that on 18.9.1996, on behalf of Insurance Company, surveyor report, dated 5.7.1995 was filed, but neither in the cross-examination of AWs 1 an 2 on 26.8.1996 any question in respect of driving licence in question was asked on behalf of Insurance Company, nor any evidence was brought on record by it. Order-sheet shows that on 3.8.1998 claimants closed their evidence and thereafter. Insurance Company was asked to produce its evidence. No evidence was produced by the Insurance Company for about 9 months and, as such, its evidence was closed on 18.5.1999. Even after argument on behalf of the claimants was heard, nobody on behalf of the Insurance Company made argument on 26.8.1999. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Jha, counsel for appellant-Insurance Company, in absence of any evidence either oral or documentary brought on record in respect of validity of driving licence, that Insurance Com- pany was not responsible to indemnify the owners liability to pay compensation under the Act. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. 6. Statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/-deposited by appellant in this appeal by Challan No. J-4, dated 7.4.2000 is permitted to be withdrawn by claimants- respondents 1 to 5, on proper verification and in accordance with law. 7. Appeal dismissed.