Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cma in Baksha Ram vs Ladu Singh And Ors on 16 September, 2019Matching Fragments
The first CMA No. 626/2002 is by Baksha Ram for enhancement as well as on account of the aspect of the appellant not having any contributory negligence.
The Second CMA No. 632/2002 filed by Om Prakash is also on the same lines.
The Third CMA No. 745/2002 and fourth CMA No. 751/2002 are filed by Ladu Singh, who is the driver and owner of the jeep for which learned counsel makes submissions of pay and recovery and negligence of the motor-cycle driver.
Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Panwar representing Baksha Ram and Om Prakash submits that the learned court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion in para 12 while deciding the issue Nos. 1 & 5 that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the motor-cycle riders.
Counsel for Ladu Singh (owner and driver) Mr. Gehlot submits that Ladu Singh being owner was having valid license and thus, was not liable for the accident. Mr. J. Gehlot further submits that once the learned court below could not arrive at a finding that (3 of 12) [CMA-626/2002] the collusion was head on, therefore, the contributory negligence of the motor-cycle riders could not have been denied. Mr. Gehlot also submits in his third submission that the principle of pay and recovery will apply and compensation awarded has to be paid by the Insurance Company and recovered later.
4. In the instant case the date of accident was 11.6.2004. The driver's licence was initially valid for the period from 15.12.1997 to 14.12.2000 and (4 of 12) [CMA-626/2002] thereafter form 29.12.2000 to 14.12.2003.
Thereafter, it was again renewed from 16.5.2005 to 15.5.2008. The appellant filed its objections before MACT taking the stand that since the driving licence was not valid on the date of accident it had no liability. MACT turned down the plea. According to it though on the date of accident the driving licence was not valid, since the driver's licence was renewed on 16.5.2005 for further period of three years it cannot be said that during the intervening period the driver was incompetent or disqualified to drive the truck. With reference to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short" the Evidence Act") it was held that at the itme of accident the driver was competent to drive the vehicle.
9. In Kusum Rai case it was held as follows:
(5 of 12) [CMA-626/2002] "14. This Court in Swaran Singh clearly laid down that the liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis the owner would depend upon several factors. The owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. The question as regards the liability of the owner vis-a-vis the driver being not possessed of a valid licence was considered in Swaran Singh.