Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 248 (UTT)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raghubeer Singh

2016-06-13

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. All the appeals, titled above, have arisen out of the same accident, though from different judgments but rendered on the same date by the Tribunal, hence are being taken up for adjudication together herein. 2. The accident took place on 10.3.2007 on Gaja-Rishikesh motor road when the offending vehicle viz. Mahindra Maxi Cab bearing No.UP08-4675 met with the accident at 7:30 PM on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver Mr. Pratap Singh, resulting into causing death and injuries to the persons traveling therein. As per the respective merits of the claim petitions, the compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal by way of the impugned judgments and the insurance company has come up before this Court challenging such awards mainly on the ground that on the relevant date and time of accident, the driver of such vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. This fact is being assailed by the appellant at the strength of Form-54, wherein the endorsement has been made by the Licensing Authority, Rishikesh that the driving licence was issued to Mr. Pratap Singh for driving LMV (PE) only and such licence was endorsed for hills with effect from 21.4.1997 and its validity was renewed from 16.11.2000 upto 15.11.2003. This paper filed by the insurance company along with the written statement is not acceptable to this Court for the following reasons: - A. The insurance company did not file any such evidence before the Tribunal; B. No permission was obtained from this Court by the insurance company seeking to bring such document on the record. C. Even if such paper is considered for a moment, then it appears that it runs counter to the photocopy of the driving licence issued by the authority concerned showing its renewal up to 19.11.2007 viz. covering the date of accident. D. Signature of the licensing authority in both the papers are illegible. So, it is not clear that under whose seal and signature, such a certificate has been issued. E. It has further not been clarified whether the driving licence held by Mr. Pratap Singh was not validly renewed up to 19.11.2007? On this point, the endorsement of the licensing authority is quite unspeaking and ambiguous. 3. So, it is not clear that under whose seal and signature, such a certificate has been issued. E. It has further not been clarified whether the driving licence held by Mr. Pratap Singh was not validly renewed up to 19.11.2007? On this point, the endorsement of the licensing authority is quite unspeaking and ambiguous. 3. As regards the quantum of compensation, a little dispute has been raised by learned Counsel for the insurance company but in my opinion, no substantial or material inconsistency is noticeable in the findings arrived at by the Tribunal while awarding the quantum of compensation. 4. In view of the above discussion, there is no force in either of these appeals. Accordingly, all the five appeals are dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. 5. The amount of statutory deposit along with the interest, if lying in this Court in any of the above-titled appeals, shall immediately be remitted back to the Tribunal concerned, for being paid to the respective claimants. 6. Lower court record be also sent back.