Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 252 (HP)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sangita Chopra

2015-03-27

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. These three appeals are outcome of a motor vehicle accident which was caused by Vikram Singh driver of Truck bearing registration No. HPS 6434, belonging to Partap Singh, rashly and negligently at Jabli District Solan, H.P. 2. Admittedly, three claim petitions came to be filed before the Tribunal whereby compensation was awarded in favour of the claimants. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer had questioned the impugned award by the medium of three appeals being FAOs No. 6, 7 and 8 of 1997, were partly allowed and the case was remanded to the Tribunal concerned to the effect whether the driver was having a valid driving licence. 3. Perusal of the record does disclose that the owner, driver and insurer/appellant have not led any evidence after remand of the case. 4. The Tribunal, after examining the driving licence, has held that the driver was having a valid driving licence as is evident from para 11 of the impugned judgment. It is apt to reproduce para 11 of the impugned judgment herein. “11.Perusal of the driving licence Ext. RR-II reveals that it was being endorsed for L.T. vehicle from 29.9.1986 to 28.9.89. Thereafter for M.T.V. also w.e.f 22.2.88 and then for II.T.V. (heavy). The licence has been renewed in 1993 by R.L.A. Solan vide R.78/ SLN/ 93 and then in 1996 by R.L.A. Shimla, Sunni, Division. As per averments in the claim petition the accident had taken place on 25.7.1993. The respondent No. 2 therefore, possessed a valid driving licence for heavy transport vehicle w.e.f. 1993 as is revealed by endorsement on Ex. RR-II.” 4. Keeping in view the judgment made by this Court on 27th September, 2004, it was for the insurer to plead and prove that driver was not having a valid driving licence. Also in view of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531, the insurer has to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach. The insurer has not led any evidence, thus failed to discharge the onus. 5. The Tribunal has rightly decided the issue. 6. Having said so, all the appeals are dismissed. Send down the record forthwith.