Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2342 (RAJ)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramvati

2011-11-03

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 6.7.2001. 2. Shri Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the licence of the deceased driver was a fake licence and it was not issued by No.3346 on 22.6.1988 by the office of RTO, Agra. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the statement of NAW-1 Vijay Pratap Singh, the representative of the RTO, Agra and argued that this witness has stated that licence at S.No.3346 has been issued in the name of Raj Kumar and not in the name of Raghunath Singh. He has denied the verification report Ex.P3 produced by the claimant. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that since few pages from period 3.6.1988 to 20.6.1988 were found missing from the register of the RTO office produced by the aforesaid witness, it could not be presumed on that basis that the licence of the deceased was entered in those pages. The suggestion of that witness NAW-1 Vijay Pratap Singh in cross examination has got no meaning because independent to that fact, he has proved that licence No.3446 was issued in the name of one Raj Kumar. Learned counsel therefore submitted that finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No.5 be reversed and the appellant insurance company be given liberty to recover the compensation amount from the owner. 4. Shri Anil Jain, learned counsel for the owner-respondent has argued that not only the driving licence of the deceased was produced but the verification report Ex.P3 obtained from the RTO, Agra was also produced. The representative of the RTO Office, NAW-1 Vijay Pratap Singh though has categorically stated in examination in chief that verification report was not issued by their office, but in cross examination he says that there are 63 clerks in their office and that he identifies the handwriting of only those who have worked with him. Ex.P3 contains the seal of the office below the signature. The officers are nominated by the RTO to sign. Shri Mukesh Chand Pandey, was RTO on 17.11.1997 and he could not say whom he authorised to sign Ex.P3, the verification report produced by the claimant. Ex.P3 contains the seal of the office below the signature. The officers are nominated by the RTO to sign. Shri Mukesh Chand Pandey, was RTO on 17.11.1997 and he could not say whom he authorised to sign Ex.P3, the verification report produced by the claimant. Learned counsel also invited attention of the Court towards the last part of his statement where in his cross examination he stated that since the date of issue, licence falls within the aforementioned dates, of which pages of the register are missing, therefore, it can be possible that licence was issued to the deceased and that was entered in any of such pages. 5. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I find that the driving licence NAW-3 and the verification report Ex.P3 were produced by the claimant. In view of the statement of witness NAW-1 Vijay Pratap Singh who was produced by the insurance company, however the facts did not become very clear. The Tribunal took the view that whatever report has been produced cannot in the light of the statement of aforesaid witness does not conclusively prove that the licence was not issued in the name of deceased or that licence was issued only in the name of Raj Kumar. The credibility of the evidence of that witness was thus doubtful. Since this witness was produced in rebuttal by the insurance company, he could not fully disapprove what was proved by the claimant. It is on those facts that the finding on issue No.5 was given. This is a finding of fact and I see no reason to interfere with the finding of fact even on re-appreciation of evidence. The appeal is therefore dismissed.