Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhotekhan vs Rajeshkumar Agrawal on 6 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: II(2000)ACC289, 2001ACJ228, (1999)IILLJ181MP, 1999(2)MPLJ75
Bench: J.G. Chitre, Shamboo Singh
JUDGMENT
1. Perused the certified copy of the impugned award. In paragraph 4 the Commissioner has pointed out that one licence D-4 was produced on the record and in that context one witness named Jagdish who happens to be Dist. Transport Officer working at Jaipur has been examined. The Commissioner pointed out in the judgment in context with the evidence of Jagdish that licence D-4 was a Forged document, as the series was not licensed by his office. It has also come in his evidence that said document was having some scorings. The judgment further shows that an objection was raised by the insurance company pointing out that deceased was not holding a valid driving licence when he drove the vehicle in question. When that was so it was incumbent on the appellants to adduce sufficient evidence for the purpose of proving that the deceased was holding a valid license. When Jagdish was examined by insurance company, it was necessary for appellants to prove that the deceased was asked by his employer to drive the said vehicle or was holding valid licence as burden of proof shifted. If these two things would have been brought separately on record for the purpose of justifying the claim preferred by the appellant, the submissions advanced by Shri G.K. Neema for the appellants could have been considered. But on this point also the appellants had failed to bring substantial material before the Commissioner.
2. When the deceased had himself endangered his safety and life by inviting unnecessary calamity, by unnecessary adventure, by engaging in driving of that vehicle, when he was not having valid licence, neither the employer nor the insurance company can be asked to pay compensation to the heirs-claimants of such deceased. It is expected that every citizen should behave in such way which would not endanger his safety or life. Public authorities or persons who have committed no wrong, cannot be compelled to pay compensation to legal heirs-claimants of such reckless and adventurous persons.
3. We do not find any error whatsoever in the judgment which has been assailed by this appeal, this appeal, stands dismissed and not admitted.