Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 826 (MP)

Surendra Singh v. Vishal Singh Rajput

2017-07-13

S.K.AWASTHI

body2017
ORDER 1. Assailing the award dated 31.1.2005 passed by Vth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Gwalior (for brevity, the 'Tribunal'), in Claim Case No.29/2004 on the point of liability, the appellants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, the 'Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that the driver of the truck bearing Registration Number HR-37 A-3169 drove the truck rashly and negligently and dashed against the scooty bearing number MP-07 KF-6564. As a result of which, the daughter of the respondents No.1 and 2, Ms. Pradhan sustained grievous injuries and succumbed on the spot. The incident was reported to the Police Station Purani Chavni, District Gwalior and an FIR bearing Crime No.133/2004 was registered for the commission of offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 3. The respondents No.1 to 5 had filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.21,70,000/- against the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle which was decided vide impugned award dated 31.1.2005 and it was held that the driver of offending truck Manjeet Singh did not have the valid driving license at the time of accident which is breach of insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, however, it was directed that insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and after that insurance company shall be free to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. Being aggrieved by this finding recorded by the Tribunal, appellants/owner and driver of the truck have filed the instant appeal. 4. It is contented in the memo of appeal that the appellant No.2 Manjeet Singh was having a valid driving license at the time of accident, but he could not produce it before the Tribunal due to the reason that the Tribunal has not afforded sufficient opportunity to the appellants for producing the driving license of the appellant No.2. Accordingly, it is prayed that matter be remitted back to the Tribunal to afford an opportunity to the appellants to produce the driving license of the appellant No.2-Manjeet Singh. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Accordingly, it is prayed that matter be remitted back to the Tribunal to afford an opportunity to the appellants to produce the driving license of the appellant No.2-Manjeet Singh. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have perused the record as well as award passed by the Tribunal. 7. From the perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of the information given by Bhagchand, the Police has registered a criminal case against the appellant No.2 for the commission of offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. During the investigation, Police seized the offending vehicle (Truck) Number HR-37 A-3169 along its registration certificate, insurance policy and permit from the possession of the appellant No.2, but at that time appellant No.2 had not produced his driving license. Thereafter, the insurance company moved an application before the Tribunal seeking direction to the appellants to produce the valid driving license of appellant No.2, but in spite of the direction of the Tribunal, the appellants failed to produce the same. The Tribunal has afforded sufficient opportunities to the appellants for producing copy of the valid driving license of the driver of truck Manjeet Singh, but they failed to do so. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly closed the right of the appellants to produce their evidence. Even, after filing of this appeal, appellants have not produced the copy of driving license of appellant No.2. In these circumstances, it cannot lie in the mouth of the appellants that though the appellant No.2 was possessed with the valid driving license but he was deprived to produce the same before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not given any opportunity to file the same. In the absence of valid driving license of appellant No.2, the trial Court has rightly exonerated the insurance company from the liability of paying compensation to respondents. 8. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellants sans substance and is hereby dismissed. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own cost.