Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1323 (PAT)

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Anju Sinha

2007-08-09

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-Assurance company, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents 1st Set and also learned counsel for respondent no. 8. No one appears for the remaining respondents in spite of repeated notices validly served on them. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 5.8.2003 by which the learned Addl. District Judge 6th-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patna allowed Claim Case No. 114 of 1998 filed by the respondents 1st Set due to the death of one Uday Prakash, who happened to be the husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents no. 2 to 5. The said deceased had died in an accident dated 24.2.1998 caused by a bus bearing Registration No. BR-16P-7278 owned by respondent no. 6 and driven by respondent no. 7 rashly and negligently. The said bus was admittedly insured by the appellant-Assurance Company. 3. The sole point on which the said order is challenged in this appeal by the Assurance Company is that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence issued in his favour and Ext.-7 which was a certified copy of driving licence produced by the claimants was a fake one. However in paragraph 3 as well as in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment it is clearly stated by the Tribunal that no evidence has been adduced by the side of the New India Assurance Company in support of their claim raised in their written statement. Now the appellants raises some claim on the basis of some document which was not even exhibited before the Tribunal, nor does it appear to be convincing. In the said circumstances, there was no material before the learned Tribunal to doubt the genuineness of the certified copy of the driving licence (Ext.-7) which was before the learned Tribunal. 4. In the said circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. 5. However, after payment of the awarded amount to the claimants if the amount of compensation paid is found to be recoverable from the owner of the vehicle, the appellants shall be entitled to. take steps with respect thereto in accordance with law and in that case this order will not prejudice their claim. 6. As prayed for by learned counsel for the appellants, let the amount of Rs. take steps with respect thereto in accordance with law and in that case this order will not prejudice their claim. 6. As prayed for by learned counsel for the appellants, let the amount of Rs. 25,000.00 which he had deposited under the provision of Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act at the time of filing of this Miscellaneous Appeal be withdrawn by the claimants-respondent 1st Set through their advocate which would be adjusted from the amount of compensation payable to the claimants by the appellants.