Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It was further replied that the licence of the driver of the min bus,Shri Jagjeet Singh,which was issued by the office of DTO,Sriganganagar clearly reveals that he was having a licence to drive LMV and not LTV and thus the claim was rightly repudiated on ground of licence. It was further stated by the appellant insurance company in its reply that the complainant res.no.1 had also filed a licence issued by the office of the DTO,Firozpur by which the licence in question was for the period 19.7.04 to 18.7.07 and the driver Shri Jagjeet Singh was also authorised to drive the LTV and HTV, but since the original of that licence was not produced,therefore,that licence was questioned and therefore,that licence was not found a valid one and claim was rightly repudiated on the ground that the driver Shri Jagjeet Singh was having a licence only to drive a LMV and not LTV plus HTV and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 31.7.2008 had allowed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that -

that the licence which was issued by the DTO,Sriganganagar of the driver of the bus of the complainant res.no.1 on 2.8.03 was valid upto 1.8.2023 and that licence was of the category of LMV.

that the driver Shri Jagjeet Singh was having another licence which was issued by the Transport Authority,Firozpur on 19.7.04 and the same was valid upto 18.7.07 and that licence was valid to drive LTV or HTV and thus on ground of licence claim was wrongly repudiated by the appellant insurance company and it was further held that the driver,Shri Jagjeet Singh was having a valid and effective licence to drive the mini bus on the date of accident.

(i)that since the licence issued by the DTO,Sriganganagar was valid only to drive LMV and not LTV,therefore,the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the licence was held to be valid and effective issued by the transport authoritities,Firozpur are erroneous one and could not be sustained and thus on ground of licence the claim was rightly repudiated.
(ii)that the so called licence issued by the office of DTO,Firozpur dated 19.7.04 should have not been taken into consideration by the District Forum as the original licence was not produced before the District Forum and further since the licence issued by the DTO,Sriganganagar was issued in the year 2003 and while that of Firozpur was issued in the year 2004,therefore,if issued so,was illegal under the provisions of law.

19. The question is whether this licence which was issued by the DTO,Firozpur upon which reliance was placed by the District Forum,Sriganganagar could be said to be a licence duly issued by the authority or not;

20. No doubt,on file there is a photostat copy but to rebut that the appellant insurance company could have made verification of that licence from the Transport Authority,Firozpur as on the photocopy of that licence, the licence number mentioned is visible and similarly there is a seal also alongwith the photo of the driver. Not only this in support of that the learned counsel for the complainant res.no.1 Shri Ajay Tantia has also shown the original licence issued by the DTO,Firozpur on 19.7.04 in name of the driver,Shri Jagjeet Singh,therefore,after seeing the original licence,the doubt which was created by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company on the ground that in absence of original licence,the licence issued by the DTO,Firozpur could not be said to be a valid one is rejected and the licence issued by the DTO,Firozpur appears to be duly issued by the competent authorities and that licence could not be questioned in absence of any documentary evidence produced by the appellant insurance company and the District Forum had rightly placed reliance on that licence.