Jharkhand High Court
Om Prakash Goyal vs Bhikhari Dhanwar And Ors. on 21 June, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2007(4)JCR290(JHR)]
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal by the appellant who is owner of the vehicle is directed against the judgment and award dated 6.7.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gumla in MJC case No. 38/99 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,80,000/- by way of compensation and directed the Insurance Company to pay the said compensation amount arid recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:
On 19.11.98, deceased Pramod Kumar Dhanwar was coining from Chainpur Circle Office, Chainpur where he was working as clerk. As soon the deceased reached near Chainpur Block turning the alleged vehicle (bus) came from Dumri to Ranchi in a high speed and dashed the deceased due to which he died on the spot. It was stated that driver did not stop the bus there on the side of the accident and fled away with bus and parked it at Chainpur police station. Claimant's case was that deceased was working in the Circle Office as Revenue Karamchari and was earning Rs. 4079.50 paise per month as his salary.
3. Respondent-Insurance Company with whom vehicle was insured appeared and contested the case by filing written statement stating inter alia that the driver of the offending bus was not having valid driving licence so the owner of the bus is liable to pay the entire compensation amount. The appellant who is owner of the vehicle filed written statement and took defence that vehicle was comprehensively insured with the National Insurance Company Limited but denied that accident was due to fault of driver. It was pleaded that deceased forcibly entered into the bus before the bus was stopped, as a result of which he sustained injury.
4. The tribunal after hearing the parties and after considering both oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and therefore, Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the bus.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned direction to recover the amount from the appellant, an bring wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that in absence of any pleading and evidence from the side of the Insurance Company with regard to the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle, the award cannot be sustained in law. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." .
6. As noticed above, the Insurance Company took specific defence in the written statement that the driver who was driving the vehicle was not having valid driving licence. In support of its case, the Insurance Company proved the documents. Ext. 'A' is a letter issued by Mr. Devashish Gupta, Investigator, National Insurance Company informing that on investigation it was found that the driving licence in favour of the driver was never issued by Licensing Authority, Murshidabad. Ext.'B' is a letter issued from the office of the Licensing Authority, District Murshidabad, Motor Vehicle Department informing the investigator that no such licence was issued in favour of the driver. It is very important to note that neither the owner examined himself nor the driving licence of the driver was proved. The owner of the vehicle has not deposed that the vehicle vas entrusted to the driver after verifying driving licence or even on the bonafide belief that driver was holding valid driving licence. In our opinion, therefore, the decisions relied upon by the appellant will not be of any help. In absence of any iota of evidence from the side of the owner of the vehicle and on the basis of evidence adduced by the Insurance Company it can safely be concluded that the driver was not holding valid driving licence and that the owner did not entrusted the vehicle to the driver bona fidely to drive the same. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment whereby the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
7. The instant appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.