JUDGMENT
S.C. Pandey, J.
1. This is an appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act’), against the award dated 11.7.1997, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Motor Claim Case No. 68 of 1995.
2. The facts of this case may be stated in a narrow compass. On 21.9.1995, the respondent No. 1 suffered a road accident when she collided with Matador No. MP 24-C2602 while travelling on a Luna No. MP 24-A1133. The respondent No. 1 was a Laboratory Technician by profession and she used to travel to Government Hospital, Durg by the aforesaid Luna. At the time of the accident, the respondent No. 1 was pregnant and was carrying a child of three months in her womb. The consequence of the accident was that the respondent No. 1 suffered injuries on her body and had suffered abortion on 9.10.1995 in the hospital on account of nervous shock she received.
3. Thereupon, the respondent No. 1 preferred a claim before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 3,61,894 from the owner, driver and insurer of the Matador. The driver appellant did not contest the claim and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal proceeded ex parte against him. The respondent No. 2, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Raipur, denied the claim of the respondent No. 1, the claimant and denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the appellant was not holding a valid driving licence at the time he was driving Matador in question. The precise claim of the respondent No. 2 was that the driving licence No. 030639/J/89 was not issued by the Regional Transport Office, Jaipur, because the investigator employed by the respondent No. 2 stated that no record of issuance of licence was available at Jaipur. The respondent No. 2 further claimed that it was not liable to pay compensation on the ground that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle insured by it.
4. The Claims Tribunal, after recording the evidence, came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 suffered injuries on the left collar bone on account of the fact that the Matador in question was rashly and negligently driven by the appellant. It also found, that as a consequence of the accident, she had an abortion. On these findings, the Claims Tribunal found that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to compensation of Rs. 36,000 plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 28.11.97 from the appellant alone. It absolved the respondent No. 2 of its liability on the ground that the appellant did not have a valid driving licence.
5. Aggrieved by the award of 11.7.97, the driver appellant filed this appeal. This court, by order dated 19.2.1998 remitted the case for further recording of evidence on the point Nos. 1, 2 and 3 framed by this court and called the findings from the Claims Tribunal. It was further directed that the Claims Tribunal shall record the findings after giving full opportunity to all the parties concerned to lead oral and documentary evidence. There was no specific order requiring the Claims Tribunal to give its finding on the evidence recorded by it. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal did not record any finding and sent back the evidence as recorded by it to this court.
6. In view of the points framed by this court, the precise question for determination is if the appellant has a valid licence issued by the Jaipur Licensing Authority, i.e., the R.T.O., Jaipur. In this connection, not only the appellant was given an opportunity to lead evidence but also the respondents. But, it was only the appellant who took the benefit of the order of remand and entered the witness-box for proving his case that the licence was issued by the R.T.O., Jaipur. After 3.8.1998, the appellant again entered the witness-box and he deposed that the licence No. 030639/J/89 was issued to him on 27.3.1989. The witness denied that the licence dated 27.3.89 was not issued to him. The correct document was Exh. D/4-A. In para 26, this witness stated that he had brought original of Exh. D/4-A. The witness further stated that Exh. D/4 does not show the correct number as 030639/J/89. He stated further that the document Exh. D/4-A was not a forged document. It was legally valid document. In cross-examination, this witness stated that whatever he had earlier stated, was on account of the fact that he was tutored to do so by the counsel for the insurance company. The witness further stated that the same licence was renewed by the licensing authority at Raipur between the period of 18.2.93 and 17.2.1996 and he further stated that this document was again got renewed on 27.8.1997 and 26.8.2000. Since no other evidence was led by any other party, the points raised by this court at the time of remitting the case have to be determined on the material which is already on record read with the evidence of this witness who has produced the original licence before the Claims Tribunal and had supplied a photocopy of that document Exh. D/4-A.
7. It would be, therefore, necessary to recall the conclusion of the Claims Tribunal in para 19 of its award which gives the reason for refusal to hold that the driving licence issued to the appellant was not a valid document. It is clear from the evidence on record that the appellant has made a total volte-face in his evidence. Earlier he had stated in para 5 of his deposition that he had not obtained a licence at Jaipur. The licence No. 030639/J/89 was not his licence. He did not get it prepared at Jaipur, even though, it showed his photograph. He stated that he had given one photograph for making a licence to one agent from R.T.O., Raipur. The Claims Tribunal has relied upon this evidence for coming to the conclusion that the appellant was not having a valid licence. Since the appellant has made a somersault in his evidence, it is necessary to carefully weigh, if the appellant is telling the truth subsequent to the remand or whether he was telling the truth earlier. It is a very difficult task especially when the appellant is deposing before the court after he suffered an award for compensation against him. It is obvious that now it is in his interest to say that he had a valid driving licence, even though, it may not be true. It appears to this court, that in such a situation, it is necessary to see the entire evidence of the appellant in order to weigh it and find it out, as far as possible which of the two statements of the appellant is true. It cannot be disputed that the appellant did not remain ex parte before the Claims Tribunal by not filing written statement. Therefore, we have to examine his evidence in the light of his conduct. In his evidence this witness totally denied that he was present at Durg when the accident took place. He denied that he was driving the vehicle in question. He admitted that he received a notice from the Claims Tribunal. He further stated that he gave the notice to an officer of the insurance company at Raipur and it is strange that it was the officer of the insurance company who stated that there was a false case laid against him. He denied that he knew the respondent No. 1. Then stated that the respondent No. 1 had come to his house claiming that she was a daughter of Superintendent of Police and stated that she shall get him tried for the accident. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he was facing a criminal trial and Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate, was his counsel in the criminal case. It appears that the witness was of the view that his case would be fought by the insurance company and he was not required to appear and file his written statement. In the cross-examination, he further denied his liability. Looking to the circumstances that rightly or wrongly the appellant believed that his civil liability will be fought by the insurance company. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the appellant made a false statement in his evidence at the instance of the officer of the insurance company to the effect that he was not holding a licence issued by the Jaipur Licensing Authority. Although, he may have engaged a counsel, but it appears that he was not told the consequence of not filing the written statement by his counsel. Being a total stranger to law, he may have stated before the Claims Tribunal falsely, little realising that the liability of the insurance company shall fall upon him. In a country where a large number of people are illiterate, it is difficult to expect legal literacy from the appellant. There is great possibility of the witnesses being tutored in the interests of the owner. This possibility is ruled out because he stated in no uncertain terms, in para 27 of his deposition that whatever he stated in his evidence was dictated to him by the counsel for the insurance company. The fact remains that he had produced the original licence after the case was remitted by this court and he had tried to explain the discrepancy in the licence Exh. D/4 and Exh. D/4-A. This may not be completely satisfactory, but since he had produced the original licence in the court, it was the duty of the respondent No. 2 insurance company to challenge it by bringing cogent material on record showing that licence produced then was a forged document. Nothing of this sort was done by the insurance company. Therefore, we are left with the version of the one M.P. Tiwari, who was examined as a witness for finding out whether the licence was issued to the appellant. This witness does not say anywhere in his evidence that he had gone to Jaipur. The other witness is Ruby Jaikab who was examined by the respondent No. 2 as a witness No. 2. This witness is an Administrative Officer of the respondent No. 2. This witness stated in para 3 that the licence No. 030639/J/89 was sent to one Mangilal Jain from the Licensing Authority in the office of R.T.O., Jaipur and it was found that there was no such licence issued by the R.T.O., Jaipur on 27.3.1989. In support of his case, this witness has proved document Exh. D/3. This document Exh. D/3 does bear a certificate of Licensing Authority, Jhalana Doongari and Jaipur (Rajasthan). This document is merely an endorsement on the paper amounting to the requisition issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. This document by itself cannot be said to be of any value as it is not an official document issued by the Licensing Authority. The only way the insurance company could have proved this fact is by getting a certificate from the Licensing Authority saying that it had duly verified from the registers relating to the issuance of the licence and found that no such licence was issued from the office. It is very difficult to believe that the Licensing Authority would give an endorsement on a paper belonging to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The authenticity of this document cannot be held to be proved merely on the basis of the endorsement. This document cannot be held to be proved under Section 74(1)(iii) of the Evidence Act. Once this court comes to this conclusion that the evidence on record now showed that licence No. 030639/J/89, Exh. D/4-A is not a forged document, it can be held that the renewal of the same document by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, was good and valid, therefore, the point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent No. 2, insurance company. Consequently, the point No. 3 is answered by saying that the liability of the insurance company would be joint and several in view of the finding recorded by this court. Since the licence has not been found to be forged, there is no need to answer any question which would be based on finding that the licence is forged. The court is firmly of the view that the appellant could not have succeeded on the basis of a forged document. But, as the court has already found the licence issued to the appellant was good and valid, therefore, the appellant and the respondent No. 2 would be jointly and severally liable.
8. The result is that the appeal succeeds and is allowed and it is held that the appellant and the respondent No. 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 36,000 to the respondent No. 1 plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 28.11.95. Accordingly, dismissal of claim against the respondent No. 2 is hereby set aside and it is held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount along with the amount of the impugned award. Accordingly, the award dated 11.7.1997 is hereby modified. Learned counsel for the appellant states that only Rs. 18,000 have been deposited and the rest of the amount of award was not deposited on account of the stay order granted by this court. It is directed that the Claims Tribunal shall make a suitable order after calculating the amount due to the respondent No. 1 under the changed circumstances and make a suitable direction for deposit of the amount in the fixed deposit and determine the quantum of the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit and the amount to be paid to the respondent No. 1, Sobha Tahanguria Joge in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.