Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 849 (PNJ)

Suraj Bhan v. Anand

2005-08-10

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2005
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The claimant has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak dated 31.5.2001 by which no compensation was awarded to the appellant on account of death of his buffalo. 2. In the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act it was averred that on 15.11.1998 the claimant along with his buffalo was returning home from the village pond and when he reached near the shop of Jai Bhagwan Thekedar, a truck bearing No. HR-38-A-5983 was coming at a high speed, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 Anand, and it struck against the electric pole as a result of which the electric wires fell on the buffalo which died instantaneously. It was submitted that buffalo was of Murah breed and was yielding 16 litres of milk per day. It was further claimed that on account of death of the Murah buffalo, the respondents are liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lac. 3. A reply was filed by the Insurance Company and they denied the fact of accident having been taken place. It has further been submitted by the Insurance certainty that the accident had taken place in the manner suggested by the claimant. However, a perusal of the statements of both the witnesses clearly shows that the accident had taken place because the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Even the post mortem report suggests that the buffalo died because of electrocution. Apart from the above, a F.I.R. has been registered. All this leads to only one conclusion that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. 4. It has been argued by Shri Hooda that the buffalo was of Murah breed which is a very high breed and as it was yielding 16 litres of milk every day, therefore, the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. l lacs. Learned counsel relied upon the post mortem report according to which the buffalo was of Murah breed. However, there is no evidence on record to show that it was yielding 16 litres of milk per day. Nevertheless, keeping in view the fact that the buffalo has died, I award a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the claimant. 5. l lacs. Learned counsel relied upon the post mortem report according to which the buffalo was of Murah breed. However, there is no evidence on record to show that it was yielding 16 litres of milk per day. Nevertheless, keeping in view the fact that the buffalo has died, I award a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the claimant. 5. Now the only question that is to be determined in the present case is - Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation? 6. It has been averred by the Counsel for the Insurance Company that the driver of the offending truck did not have a valid driving licence. The Insurance Company had proved and produced the driving licence verification from the original Licencing Authority at Cuttack which is Ex.R3 and as per the verification, the licence No. 652/C/9583 was never issued in the name of Anand and as per record, it was in the name of Abdul Feroz son of Abdul Niaz. On the basis, of above, it was contended that the licence was fake. The Tribunal has also held that the licence is fake. No evidence has been led by either the owner or the driver of the truck to show that the licence was genuine one. The owner of the offending vehicle has not appeared in the witness box to say that he had taken adequate precaution before appointing the driver. Thus, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. They shall, however, pay the entire compensation and thereafter recover it from the owner and the driver of the truck. 7. In view of the above, the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, dated 31.5.2001 is set aside and the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The Insurance Company shall pay the entire amount of compensation to the appellant. They are, however, entitled to recover the amount from the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent Nos. 1 and 2.