Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 338 (JK)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lavinder Singh

2020-07-27

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2020
Judgement (Oral) CONC 41/2011 For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed. Delay of 284 in filing the appeal is condoned. The present appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the “insurer”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') against the award dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in file 637/Claim whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,76,200/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of respondent Nos.1 (claimant). 2. Briefly stated the facts, relevant to the disposal of this appeal, are that on 30.10.2005, the deceased was going towards Bakshi Nagar on his Motor cycle and when he reached near GMC Jammu, a Bus bearing registration No. JK02X-9639 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit his Sr. No.217 motor cycle, as a result whereof, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries to which he later succumbed. 3. Respondent No. 1 herein (claimant) filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.16,50,000/- from the respondents. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether an accident occurred on 30.10.2005 near Government Medical College Jammu by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JK02X-9639 being driven in the hands of erring, driver in which petitioner Lavinder Singh sustained grievous injuries ? OPP (ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom. ? OPP (iii) Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being driven against the violations of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the route permit, if so how and what is its effect ? OPR 3 (iv) Relief OP Parties. 5. On the basis of evidence on record, the claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.4,76,200 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 6. In the backdrop of aforesaid, the present appeal has been filed by the insurer. OPR 3 (iv) Relief OP Parties. 5. On the basis of evidence on record, the claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.4,76,200 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 6. In the backdrop of aforesaid, the present appeal has been filed by the insurer. The impugned interim award has been assailed solely on the ground that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance at the time of the accident as the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that the driving licence of the driver, who was driving the offending vehicle, had already expired. It is submitted that since the driver was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability of payment of compensation. 8. Heard learned counsel for the insurer and perused the record. 9. Regarding the plea of the insurer that the person driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence on the date of accident as the period of licence had expired and, therefore, insurance company had no liability, I find no substance in it. 10. From the perusal of the impugned award, it clearly transpires that the Tribunal had framed a specific issue to that effect viz.“ Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being driven in violations of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the route permit, if so how and what is its effect ? OPR-1”. The onus of this issue was on the insurer. However, the insurer did not adduce any evidence to prove that, at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly held the said issue not proved. I see no reason to take a different view. 11. In the absence of any evidence having been led to prove the aforesaid issue, I am not inclined to accept the plea of the insurer and interfere with the impugned award. 12. In view of the above, this appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed.