Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 283 (PNJ)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Geeta Rani

2014-02-05

NAVITA SINGH

body2014
Navita Singh, J. These appeals are filed against the award dated 17.1.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal), Ferozepur, awarding various amounts of compensation to the respective claimants. All the above said appeals are being disposed of by a single judgment because the grounds of appeal in all are the same. Also three claim petitions had arisen in relation to the same accident, in which compensation was granted to the respective claimant(s) and the Insurance Company (for short the Company) has come in appeal on the ground that the Tribunal wrongly held that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was genuine. The point involved in all the appeals is the same. 2. The facts were that an accident allegedly took place on account of rash and negligent driving of truck/traulla bearing No. PB-02-AS-9827 by Gurmukh Singh-present respondent No. 2, on 1.10.2009 at about 3.15 p.m. At that time, Geeta Rani along with her sons Neeraj Kumar, Rajbir and Snehdeep as also one Jagjit Singh and Surjit Kumar, were going on three bicycles towards Gurudwara Sahib, Village Dulchi Ke. When they reached near the rice sheller of Fauja Singh, the offending vehicle came from the opposite side and hit all the bicycles by coming to the wrong side. Neeraj Kumar, Snehdeep and Rajbir, all sustained injuries on different parts of their bodies. The number of the vehicle was noted by Surjit Kumar. All injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, where Snehdeep was declared dead. A case was registered by the police on the statement of Geeta Rani. 3. Compensation with regard to the death of Snehdeep was claimed by his mother Geeta Rani and holding that the accident was caused by the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,15,000/-. 4. Neeraj Kumar filed a claim on account of the injuries sustained by him and was granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. Similarly, in a claim petition filed by Rajbir, he was awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him. 5. In all the cases, respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of the vehicle concerned, filed a joint written statement denying that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the above said truck by Gurmukh Singh. 10,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him. 5. In all the cases, respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of the vehicle concerned, filed a joint written statement denying that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the above said truck by Gurmukh Singh. It was pleaded that the claim had been preferred to extort money. Rather, even the factum of accident was denied. 6. The Company (appellant herein) filed a separate written reply stating that the claim was frivolous and the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. The claim petitions were alleged to have been filed in collusion with the driver of the vehicle to extort money from the Company. All the material allegations regarding the accident etc., were denied. 7. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal in the petition filed by Geeta Rani:- 1. Whether Snehdeep died in the motor vehicle accident caused by respondent No. 1 while driving truck-traula bearing No. PB-02-AS-9827 in a rash and negligent manner on 1.10.2009 at about 3.15 PM in the area near rice sheller of Fauja Singh? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation, if so, how much from which of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Relief. 8. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal in the petition filed by Neeraj Kumar:- 1. Whether claimant Neeraj Kumar sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident caused by respondent No. 1 while driving truck-traula bearing No. PB-02-AS-9827 in a rash and negligent manner on 1.10.2009 at about 3.15 PM in the area near rice sheller of Fauja Singh? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation, if so, how much from which of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Relief. 9. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal in the petition filed by Rajbir:- 1. OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Relief. 9. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal in the petition filed by Rajbir:- 1. Whether claimant Rajbir sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident caused by respondent No. 1 while driving truck-traula bearing No. PB-02-AS-9827 in a rash and negligent manner on 1.10.2009 at about 3.15 PM in the area near rice sheller of Fauja Singh? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation, if so, how much from which of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Relief. FAO No. 2510 of 2012 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award of the Tribunal only on one point, i.e. the genuineness of the driving licence of the driver Gurmukh Singh. He has stated that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence on that aspect in the right perspective. There was sufficient evidence to show that the driving licence was genuine. Therefore, the Company should have been given the right to recover the amount of compensation from the insured, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. He referred to para 19 of the award passed in the claim petition filed by Geeta Rani, whereby compensation on account of death of Snehdeep was claimed. He contended that despite the Company having produced Ex. R1, which was the report of the District Transport Officer, District Thoubal, Manipur and the copy of driving licence register Mark RA, the Tribunal wrongly held that the driving licence could not be found to be fake in view of that report and it could not be said that the insured had committed any breach of terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. He argued that it was wrongly held that the endorsement Ex. R1 was made on the request of the Investigator of the Company and that the same could not be connected to the driver here. The Tribunal held that though in the aforesaid report, the name was mentioned as Gurmukh Singh, yet the address of Gurmukh Singh having not been given, it could not be said that report pertained to Gurmukh Singh, who was a party before the Tribunal. 11. The Tribunal held that though in the aforesaid report, the name was mentioned as Gurmukh Singh, yet the address of Gurmukh Singh having not been given, it could not be said that report pertained to Gurmukh Singh, who was a party before the Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the report Ex. R1, which shows that a written request was made by the investigator to District Transport Officer, District Thoubal, Manipar, regarding verification of driving licence No. 87631/Mth pertaining to Gurmukh Singh and a reference number was also given. Report was made by the District Transport Officer, District Thoubal, Manipur, by way of an endorsement that the above mentioned driving licence No. 87631 was found to be not genuine as per record of that office. The endorsement was made on the letter written by the investigator. Mark RA shows that driving licence at that number had been issued in the name of one Samay Singh of Tehsil, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, which was valid from 20.1.2009 to 13.1.2012. It was rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Company had no interest in getting the false report as it would affect the reputation of the Company and it was only to bring the true facts before the Court, that the documents were produced. It is the onus on the Company to show the genuineness of the driving licence of the driver concerned. He showed copy of the driving licence in the name of Gurmukh Singh in which the same number was mentioned regarding which report was sought and it was rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the driving licence was supplied by the driver who was a party to the claim petition as the Company would otherwise have no source to get his driving licence. The arguments are convincing. There was no reason for the Tribunal to have disbelieved the documents produced by the Company. If two driving licences were purportedly issued on the same number from District Thoubal, Manipur, in the names of different persons, something was definitely not right and it could safely be said that the driving licence of Gurmukh Singh was not genuine. There was no reason for the Tribunal to have disbelieved the documents produced by the Company. If two driving licences were purportedly issued on the same number from District Thoubal, Manipur, in the names of different persons, something was definitely not right and it could safely be said that the driving licence of Gurmukh Singh was not genuine. The right of the claimants was not to be adversely affected even if the driving licence was held to be fake by the Tribunal as they would have in any case been compensated by the Company. It is only the Company, which was to get a right to recover the compensation amount from the insured, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. 12. It is, therefore, held that the appellant was able to prove that the driving licence of Gurmukh Singh, who was driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time, was not genuine. The amount of compensation if paid by the appellant to claimant Geeta Rani shall be recoverable by the Company from the insured, i.e. respondent No. 3 Manjit Singh. The appeal is accordingly liable to be allowed to that extent. FAOs No. 2511 and 2512 of 2012 13. The Company has not led any evidence in the claim petitions by Neeraj Kumar and Rajbir filed for claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by them in the same accident in which Snehdeep had died. Surprisingly, evidence was led by the appellant to show that the driving licence of respondent No. 2 was not genuine in only one of the claim petitions, i.e. one filed by Geeta Rani for claiming compensation on account of death of her son Snehdeep, while no such evidence was led by the appellant in the other two petitions. In those petitions, the evidence of the Company was closed by the court as no evidence had been led at all. Since awards were passed separately in all the cases by the Tribunal and the cases were not consolidated, it will have to be taken as no evidence regarding driving licence of present respondent No. 2 was led by the appellant in the two petitions relating to claim for compensation qua injuries. In those cases, it was rightly held by the Tribunal that there was no evidence to show that the driving licence of respondent No. 2 was fake. In those cases, it was rightly held by the Tribunal that there was no evidence to show that the driving licence of respondent No. 2 was fake. The Company was correctly saddled with the responsibility to pay the compensation amount. Both these appeals are liable to be dismissed. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Company in one of the cases, i.e., FAO No. 2510 of 2012 stands allowed and right to recover the compensation amount from the insured Manjit Singh is granted to the Company. However, the other two appeals, i.e., FAOs No. 2511 and 2012 of 2012 are dismissed.