Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 555 (RAJ)

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Kanaram

2021-03-04

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 29/07/2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra (District & Sessions Judge, Balotra, District Barmer) in Civil Misc. (Claim) Case No. 5/1998. Vide judgment dated 29/07/2000, the claim petition of the claimants was decided and an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- was awarded to the claimants on account of the death of Smt. Nenu Devi. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants as stated hereinabove. 2. Heard. 3. Shri UCS Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has attacked the finding of the Tribunal recorded on issue No.3. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal erred while recording the finding on issue No.3 as the liability has been fastened on the Insurance Company only on the ground that the Insurance Company could not discharge its burden to prove the fact that at the time of the accident, the driver of the bus was holding a requisite licence or not. Learned counsel submits that it was discussed in detail that the police after investigation has filed charge sheet under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the driver showing the fact that at the time of accident, the driver was not holding the requisite driving licence for driving the bus. He further submits that the owner of the bus was already charge-sheeted under Section 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, this clearly goes to show that the driver of the bus Prem Singh was not authorized to drive the bus at the time of accident. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal was not correct in holding the Insurance Company responsible for paying the compensation. He further submits that there was gross violation of the Insurance Policy as the bus was being driven by a person who was not holding the valid driving licence to drive the bus. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be burdened with the liability to pay the compensation in this case. 4. He further submits that there was gross violation of the Insurance Policy as the bus was being driven by a person who was not holding the valid driving licence to drive the bus. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be burdened with the liability to pay the compensation in this case. 4. E-converso, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the finding recorded on issue No.3 is well reasoned and it was noted by the Tribunal that despite opportunity being given to the Insurance Company to discharge its burden, they failed to prove that driver of the bus Prem Singh was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. He submits that neither the driver of the bus appeared before Tribunal nor any reply was filed, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not holding a valid driving licence. It was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to discharge its burden to prove before the Tribunal that the driver of the bus Prem Singh was not holding the valid licence at the time of accident. He has taken the Court to the statement of NAW. 1 Sagarmal who stated in his testimony that he did not go to the Office of the Transport Authorities to check whether any licence in the name of Prem Singh was issued or not. He, therefore, submits that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and no interference is called for by this Court in this case. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as other relevant record of the case. 6. The Tribunal dealt with the issue No.3 in detail and came to the conclusion that the burden of proof was on the Insurance Company to prove the fact that driver of the bus Prem Singh was not holding any licence, much-less valid licence at the time of the accident. The representative, who appeared before the Tribunal as NAW1 Samaras, also stated that he did not take the requisite steps to find out whether the driver of the bus Prem Singh was holding any valid licence at the time of accident or not. He did not make any investigation with respect to the fact that whether the driver of the bus was holding any licence or not. He did not make any investigation with respect to the fact that whether the driver of the bus was holding any licence or not. For brevity, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 is reproduced as under :- 7. Learned Tribunal discussed and deliberated on the issue in detail and after analyzing the fact held that it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to prove beyond doubt that driver of the bus, namely, Prem Singh was not holding the licence at the time of accident. Since they failed to discharge their burden, therefore the issue No.3 was rightly decided against the Insurance Company. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. The appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.