Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2456 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prem Devi

2011-11-15

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. aggrieved with the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur dated 31.8.2001, which has awarded Rs.1,59,400/- as compensation to the claimant-respondents. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the claimants could not prove that the driver had valid license and that the original driving license was not produced either by the claimants or owner despite specific allegations made by the appellant Insurance Company in that behalf. It was argued that burden of proving the valid license was on the claimants and the owner and not on the Insurance Company. It was argued that the driving license was also not produced during investigation. Owner should be held responsible for making payment of compensation. Appellant had paid the amount of compensation to the claimants and it should be given the recovery rights. The appeal therefore be allowed and the award of the Tribunal may be set-aside. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has opposed the appeal and argued that photocopy of the driving license was exhibited after producing the original thereof in the Court and after making comparison thereof, the photocopy thereof was exhibited in evidence. Learned Tribunal therefore has passed a just and reasonable amount of compensation holding insurance company, driver and owner to pay compensation jointly and severally. The appeal of the insurance company therefore be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award, I find that Tribunal on Issue No.3 has noted the evidence of DW-1 Jaiman Singh, representative of RTO office, which the Insurance Company has produced in its defence before the Tribunal. DW-1 Jaiman Singh in his statement has stated that they could not locate the original record of Registered License No.RJ.28/D.L./0413/92 dated 20.5.1992 because their office was shifted from old building to new government building due to which, the record has been mixed up and hence the original record could not be produced. The RTO sent the information vide Exh.D3 to the police, certified copy of which was exhibited as Exh.D3A and after going through the photocopy of the driving license, he could not make any certain comment thereabout because there were over writings and cuttings. 5. The RTO sent the information vide Exh.D3 to the police, certified copy of which was exhibited as Exh.D3A and after going through the photocopy of the driving license, he could not make any certain comment thereabout because there were over writings and cuttings. 5. In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that the Insurance Company discharged its onus of proving that the driver did not have any valid license or onus shifted to the claimants. The onus of proving Issue No.3 was upon the Insurance Company, which it failed to prove therefore no fault can be attributed to the finding of the learned Tribunal given on Issue No.3 in favour of claimants and against the Insurance Company. 6. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The record be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.