Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 673 (HP)

Naru Ram v. Durga Devi

2017-06-14

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. (Oral)—The owner of the offending vehicle has filed the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ''the Act'') against the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur on 20.8.2015 fastening upon the appellant and respondent No.2 the liability to pay Rs.5,64,956/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the amount is deposited. 2. In view of the nature of order I propose to pass, a reference to detailed facts may not necessary, suffice it to say that the claimant/respondent No.1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act for grant of compensation on account of the injuries sustained by her in an alleged motor accident which took place on 4.2.2013 involving the bus owned by the appellant and being driven allegedly by respondent No.2, Babloo Kumar. 3. The appellant along with the appeal has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for placing on record additional evidence (CMP No.10077/2016) to prove that even if it is assumed for the time being that it was Babloo Kumar, who had been driving the vehicle at the relevant time, even then he at the relevant date was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus in question and findings, to the contrary rendered by the learned Tribunal, therefore, deserve to be set aside. 4. It would be noticed that the appellant has appended photocopy of the driving licence along with the details, which have been downloaded from the official website of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India and, thus, prima facie presume to be true. In reply filed by the Insurance Company-respondent No.2, preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application at this stage has been raised and it is once again reiterated that the driver, Babloo Kumar, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident in question. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. As observed above, the learned Tribunal has come to the categoric conclusion while answering issues No.2 and 6(a) that it was Babloo Kumar, who was driving the bus at the relevant time and he was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus in question at the time of accident on a public road. 7. Therefore, in such circumstances, in case the appellant is able to prove that Babloo Kumar was in fact having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident to drive the bus, then obviously, the consequences of the outcome of the claim petition are bound to be different from the one which have been arrived at vide the impugned award. 8. Notably, the documents now sought to be produced and proved by the appellant are the documents, which are available on the official website of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India and, thus, do carry presumption of truth, however the fact still remains that those would still be required to be proved in accordance with law. 9. Once these documents carry presumption of truth, then the Insurance Company-respondent No.3 cannot oppose this application only for the sake of opposition. After all, every trial is a voyage of discovery in which the truth is the quest. It is therefore, the duty of the Court to ensure that the truth in a case comes up, the entire journey of a Judge to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents, evidence and arguments of the parties. The truth is the basis of justice delivery system. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process and, therefore, the Court''s serious endeavour has to be focused only to find out where in fact the truth lies. The Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Justice system will acquire credibility only when the people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application (CMP No.10077/2016) for leading additional evidence is allowed. 11. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Justice system will acquire credibility only when the people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application (CMP No.10077/2016) for leading additional evidence is allowed. 11. As the Court has allowed the application for additional evidence, the impugned award cannot sustain and the instant case is accordingly remanded to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur with a direction to permit the appellant to lead additional evidence only with respect to the validity of the driving licence possessed by Babloo Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle. The opposite party shall have the right to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the appellant, who shall also have the independent right to produce independent witnesses with respect to the driving licence of Babloo Kumar. 12. The learned Tribunal is requested to decided the matter, as expeditiously as possible, and in no event later than 31st August, 2017. The parties through their counsel to appear before the learned Tribunal on 27.6.2017. The registry is directed to forthwith send back the records, which have been requisitioned from the learned Tribunal vide order dated 1.3.2017. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Cross Objections No.16 of 2017 13. In view of the main appeal having been disposed of in the aforesaid terms, these cross objections have been rendered infructuous and are dismissed as such, however, liberty is reserved to the claimant/respondent No.1 to file a separate appeal or cross objections for enhancement of the compensation, as and when such occasion arises. 14. However, before parting it needs to be clarified that in the event of the award being modified by the learned Tribunal below, the findings as returned by this Court in this appeal and earlier FAO No.419/2015, decided on 22.4.2016 will not come in the way and no observations and findings therein would be construed to be an expression on the merits of the case so as to operate as res judicata or even operate as an estoppel against any of the parties and the learned Tribunal shall proceed to decide the case uninfluenced by any of the observations which have been made hereinabove. 15. The pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.