Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 492 (JK)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranjeet Sharma

2016-09-29

R.SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : R. Sudhakar, J. Condi. No. 55/2010 In view of the reasons assigned, a good ground is made out for condoning the delay of 91 days in preferring the appeal. Delay is accordingly condoned and appeal is taken on board. CIMA Nos. 260/2014 1. The appeal is of the year 2010. The appellant-Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 31.07.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu. 2. It is a case of accident. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,74,000/- as compensation to the claimant-Ranjeet Sharma with 7.5% rate of interest per annum. 3. The finding of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not disputed. The appellant-Insurance Company disputes its liability on the plea that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license at the time of accident. The Insurance Company in the proceedings before the Tribunal raised a specific plea in this behalf and submitted Diet Expenses for summoning the officer from Licensing Authority concerned. The Tribunal without giving the appellant-Insurance Company an opportunity closed the evidence and proceeded to pass award in all to the sum of Rs. 1,74,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company fairly stated that quantum of compensation is not in dispute. It is clearly stated that claimants can withdraw the award so deposited with interest, assuming that the Court remands the matter for re-enquiry, insofar as the plea for 'pay and recover' is concerned, under no circumstances the claimants will be asked to refund the amount. Their entitlement to receive the amount awarded by the Tribunal with interest is absolute and unchallenged. 5. In view of the above, on the accepted plea, the Court is inclined to proceed with the next issue as to whether the Tribunal was justified in closing the evidence without giving the appellant-Insurance Company an opportunity to rebut the claim on the plea that the liability at best should be fixed on the owner of the vehicle with rider that the Insurance Company should have been allowed to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle on account of driver not holding a valid driving license. The request for summoning the witness was turned down by the Tribunal without any just and reasonable cause. 6. The request for summoning the witness was turned down by the Tribunal without any just and reasonable cause. 6. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent as follows:- i. The award in favour of the claimants is confirmed. They are entitled to withdraw the same and they will not be liable to refund the same in any circumstances. ii. Appellant-Insurance Company will be entitled to examine the witness before the Tribunal on the short issue as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license or not and, if they are successful in proving that the driver did not hold a valid driving license, the appellant-Insurance Company is entitled to raise the plea of pay and recover. To that extent, the appeal is allowed and disposed of by way of remanding back to the files of Presiding Officer-MACT Jammu.