Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2283 (ALL)

National Insurance Co. v. Anand Kanodia

2023-10-05

SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2023
JUDGMENT Saral Srivastava, J. Civil Misc. Application No. 85230 of 2002:- List has been revised. None for the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. This application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC has been filed by the appellant for taking the verification report issued by the Licensing Authority, Faizabad in respect to the driving license of driver of offending vehicle. 4. In the said application, it is averred that the company has made its best effort to obtain the verification report of driving license of driver of the offending vehicle but could get the same after the award passed by the tribunal. Accordingly, it is submitted that the reason for not submitting verification report before the tribunal was beyond the control of the appellant and accordingly, it is prayed that the verification report may be admitted as additional evidence on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the application. 6. In the application, only vague averment has been made in paragraph 3 of the application that the company made its best effort to obtain the verification report. The accident had taken place in the year 1998 and the claim petition was instituted in the same year i.e. 1998. The claim petition was decided by the tribunal by judgement dated 18.02.2002 after about four years from the date of institution of the claim petition. 7. The affidavit filed in support of the application does not disclose any reason as to why in four years, the appellant could not get the verification report. As the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC does not meet the requirement of Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC for taking a document as additional evidence on record, therefore, this Court does not find any good ground to allow such an application. 8. Consequently, the application is rejected. Order on Appeal:- 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 10. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 18.02.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad in MACP No. 326 of 1998, whereby the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of institution of claim petition for the injuries suffered by the claimant in an accident on 13.03.1998 with DCM 707 No. DL1LB/4075. 11. 11. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that driving license of the driver of offending vehicle was fake and therefore, the tribunal has erred in law in fixing liability upon the appellant to pay compensation. It is submitted that since the driving license of the driver of offending vehicle was fake, therefore, the owner has committed breach of policy and thus, the insurance company should have been given right of recovery. 12. Be that as it may, the insurance company did not lead any evidence to establish that the driving license of driver of offending vehicle was fake. The insurance company filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC for taking verification report in respect of driving license issued by the Transport Authority, Faizabad on record. This Court does not find merit in the application under under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC and consequently, rejected it. 13. Since, the insurance company did not lead any cogent evidence to establish that the driving license was fake, this Court is of the view that the finding of the tribunal on the issue of driving license is based upon settled principle of law and does not call for any interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. 14. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Order on Cross Objection:- List has been revised. None for the respondents. The cross objection is dismissed in default for want of prosecution.