Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 83 (PAT)

National Insurance Company Ltd. , Gaya v. Leela Kuer

2015-01-15

AKHILESH CHANDRA

body2015
AKHILESH CHANDRA, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an appeal preferred by insurer appellant challenging the judgment and Award dated 06.07.2010 and 19.11.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. - III, cum Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Aurangabad, in connection with M.V. Accident Claim Case No. 17/ 2000 / 11/2010. 3. Since this appeal has been preferred only on the ground that in spite of the fact that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid license rather fake license was produced, the Claim Tribunal ignoring the materials directed the appellant to pay the compensation against death of Bidyanath Mehta which was taking place on 05.04.2000, even without affording right of recovery. Since there is no dispute on any other point and it is not relevant to go into other details. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that driving license of the driver Bigan Singh is said to have issued from D.T.O. Hazaribagh, but Exhibit – I is the report issued from such office clearly denying issuance of the driving license. Besides the above, Exhibit – H is the report of the investigator also stating all such things relying upon Exhibit – I. But, the record indicates that appellant insurer has not produced investigator Binay Kumar Singh nor any authentic person who proved Exhibit – I, rather, everything appears done in a very formal manner. 5. In absence of specific materials placed properly on the record, there appears no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to satisfy the Award with interest as directed within a month. However, as prayed for, at its own risk, if the insurer finds it satisfied on the basis of materials available with it to initiate proceeding for recovery of the amount so paid to the claimant from owner of the offending vehicle, may initiate such proceedings wherein the owner respondent no. 7 shall have every right to contest. The statutory deposit be remitted at once to the Claim Tribunal below for needful. ?