Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 646 (ALL)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. YASHODHARA DEVI

2013-02-26

ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, RAKESH TIWARI

body2013
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. 2. In Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 56835 of 2013, there is delay of only 17 days in filing the appeal. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay is condoned. 3. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the award dated 22.10.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Kushinagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 91 of 2007, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,99,500/- together with simple interest at the rate 6% per annum has been awarded to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 4. It appears that on 15.5.2007, deceased Banke Singh was returning home and when he reached in front of Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya at 12.30 p.m. Commander Jeep No. UP-52/A-8204, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver coming from opposite side knocked him down whereby he sustained fatal injuries and died on way to Medical College, Gorakhpur. 5. The owner of the vehicle did not contest the claim. The appellant, inter alia, pleaded that the vehicle was being driven without any valid driving licence, permit or fitness certificate. 6. The claimants adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. The appellant filed verification report relating to driving licence (paper No. 31Ga) and did not adduce any oral evidence. 7. Alongwith the appeal the appellant has filed application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, supported with an affidavit seeking permission to admit the report of their Investigator dated 1.11.2012 alongwith photocopy of Form-54 issued by Licensing Authority, M.V. Department, Gorakhpur. This report of the Investigator is dated 1.11.2012 while award in the case was pronounced by the Tribunal on 22.10.2012. We cannot appreciate appointment of Investigator by the Insurance Company after the award has been delivered by the Tribunal in the case. The appellant has already filed report of its earlier Investigator Ajay Kumar Srivastava regarding verification of driving licence No. U-4515/GKP/01, which was considered by the Tribunal and now the appellant has come up with the allegations that the number of driving licence of the driver of offending vehicle is U185/II/04. 8. On perusal of the photocopy of the driving licence filed by the appellant we find that the driving licence of the driver is U-4515/GKP/01. 8. On perusal of the photocopy of the driving licence filed by the appellant we find that the driving licence of the driver is U-4515/GKP/01. A number U-185/II/04 has also been written on this driving licence but it cannot be the number of the driving licence. In State of Uttar Pradesh the driving licences issued by the various Licensing Authorities of the M.V. Department the short name of the concerned District is noted e.g. GKP for Gorakhpur District and so on. It is further found that the Investigator in its report dated 1.11.2012 has got the verification report regarding driving licence No. U-185/II/Jari/04/Jari dated 20.1.2001. The word ‘Jari’ noted at two places in this DL number does not find place in the copy of the driving licence. It is further noted that the date of issue of driving licence is of 20.1.2001, because the last digit of the driving licence denotes its year of issue, as it should be ‘01’, which is written in the driving licence in question, so above alleged number cannot be suffixed by ‘04’. It appears to be a case of misreading and wrong interpretation of the driving licence by the appellant. Moreover, the grounds taken for admitting the additional evidence do not come within the purview of Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure as the conditions mentioned therein are not fulfilled. In these circumstances, application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. has no force and is accordingly, rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that if application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. is not allowed then the appellant has no other valid ground to challenge the impugned award. 10. In view of the above, the appeal sans merit and is accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. 11. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant in this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned within a period 3 weeks for adjustment. —————