Punjab-Haryana High Court
Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Birmati And Others on 16 May, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No.3628 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.3628 of 2011
Date of decision: 16.05.2012
Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Birmati and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate,
for Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
-.-
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)
The Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the award dated 22.2.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, (for short, 'the Tribunal').
The brief facts of the case are that on 19.10.2008, Rajeev Kumar was hit by a Commander Jeep bearing registration No.HR-35-8560 being driven by respondent No.3, the driver, in a rash and negligent manner. The injured was removed to Government Hospital, Mohindergarh and upon reference, to SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where he breathed his last during treatment. An FAO No.3628 of 2011 -2- FIR bearing No.282 dated 19.10.2008 was registered against the driver.
The claimant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred claim petition before the learned Tribunal. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether Rajeev son of Krishan Kumar died in a road accident which took place on 19.10.2008 in the area of village Adhiyar (Police Station Kanina) due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 the driver of jeep no.HR-35-8560 ? OPP.
2. Whether respondent No.1 did not hold a valid driving lifence if so to what effect ? OPR-3
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to award of compensation and if so, how much and from whom ? OPP
4. Relief.
Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal recorded issue-wise findings and awarded compensation of `2,00,000/- to the claimants and held that the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Insurance Company FAO No.3628 of 2011 -3- came in this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant refers to Ex.R4 and R5 and states that the driver was not holding a valid and effective licence on the date of accident. The driving licence produced by the driver was a fake one.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 contends that the learned Tribunal gave a clear-cut finding that the Insurance Company could not prove by leading cogent evidence that the driving license in question was fake.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Ex.R4 and R5 are the communications issued by the DTO, Mainpuri from where the alleged driving licence was issued. Respondent No.3, the driver is a permanent resident of Adhiyar, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh. He was afforded an opportunity to furnish an affidavit along with other requisite documents that in the year 2008, he was residing in District Mainpuri, U.P. However, in response to the same, no document has been furnished on record. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the driving licence held by the respondent was a fake one.
In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the FAO No.3628 of 2011 -4- appellant-Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability as fixed by the learned Tribunal and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are held liable to satisfy the award.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal be refunded to the appellant.
16.05.2012 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE
Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes / No.