HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
M A No 869 of 2000
National Insurance Co Ltd
...Petitioners
Versus
1 Smt Renue
2 Bhagwan Singh
3 Sanjay Kumar Chourasiya
4 United India Insurance Co Ltd
...Respondents
! Shri B N Nande counsel for the appellant
^ Shri Abhishek sharma Advocate appears on behalf of Shri R Pradhan counsel for respondent No 1 None for respondents No 2 & 3
CORAM: Honble Shri Justice R L Jhanwar
Dated: 19/01/2011
: Judgement
ORDER
Passed on 19012011
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988
This is an appeal by the National Insurance Company
Limited against the order dated 04.02.2000 passed by the 5th
Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim
Case No.36/95 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has
awarded Rs.25,000/- as total compensation to the respondent
No. 1/claimant in an injury case.
2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are on fateful
day of 15.05.1995 at about 7.00 a.m. when the respondent and
husband were going from Bhilai to Durg on scooter bearing
No. M.P. 24/7935, at the same time, the respondent No.2, who
was driving TATA tipper bearing registration M.P. 24 C/2072
(for short `the offending vehicle’), owned by respondent
No.3 and insured by the appellant, in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed the scooter after hitting a tree. Due to
such dash, both the respondent No.1 and her husband got
serious injuries, as a result of which, the husband of
respondent No.1 died instantaneously.
3. As against the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- sought by
the respondent No.1 by filing claim petition 166 of the
M.V.Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor
accident on 15.5.1995, the learned Claims Tribunal, on close
scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties and submissions
made by them, awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest at
6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till
realization. The Tribunal further directed respondents No.1
to 3 to pay compensation amount jointly and severally. It
is this order, which is under challenge by the insurer /
appellant.
4. Shri B.N.Nande, learned counsel for the appellant
argued that in this case, doctor has not been examined,
therefore, no compensation should be awarded to the
claimant. The next argument is that the driver was holding
a licence No.11366 which was found to be fake, after due
investigation. According to him, the learned Tribunal had
appointed a commissioner to take the evidence of the persons
working in the Office of Regional Transport Authority at
Jhansi and Shri N.L.Shrivastava, Advocate was appointed as
Commissioner to enquire about the matter about the
verification of the licence. The said Advocate conducted
enquiry and took the evidence of Yogendra Kumar Garg C.W.1
and Deepak Khare C.W.2 in which they stated that the
Licensing Authority, Jhansi did not issue any licence to
Bhagwan Singh whereas it was issued in the name of one
Sajjan Singh. Despite all this, the learned Tribunal did
not rely nor did consider the evidence of above witnesses.
It was further argued that the learned Claims Tribunal on
conjectures and surmises has recorded a finding that the
owner of the offending vehicle has after verification of the
licence held by his driver Bhagwan Singh allowed him to
drive the offending vehicle. On this point, the Tribunal
has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the
insurer, which is not in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 supported the
impugned judgment.
6. Having heard rival submissions of the parties, I have
perused the record of the Claims Tribunal and impugned
order. A perusal of pleadings and evidence of respondent
No.1 / claimant would clearly reveal that she sustained
injuries in the accident on 15.05.1995 caused by respondent
No.2. It is clear from the record that no doctor has been
examined. But on this count, no compensation should be
awarded is not proper. After perusal of evidence of Smt.
Renue A.W.1, it is clear that she was admitted in Sector –
9, Hospital, Bhilai where she remained for a period of 13
days for the injuries sustained by her on head and stomach.
It is further evident from her evidence that one intestine
was found out and on this point, she did not contradict in
her cross-examination. In rebuttal, neither the insurer nor
the owner could adduce evidence that she has not sustained
injuries in the motor accident. Considering the injuries
sustained by her in the accident and also lost her husband
in that accident, no doubt, she would have definitely
suffered pain and mental agony. Of course, she could not
produce any medical bills but considering the number and
nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by
respondent No.1 in the motor accident and some amount could
have been spent on the treatment, the Tribunal has rightly
awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as total compensation in favour
of respondent.
7. Now so far as the question that remains for
consideration is as to who is responsible to pay
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. On perusal of
the impugned order, it is clear that the learned Claims
Tribunal did not see the evidence adduced by the
Commissioner, who was appointed by the learned Tribunal.
After perusal of evidence of Yogendra Kumar Garg C.W.1 and
Deepak Khare C.W.2, it is clear that the driving licence
No.1366 was not issued from Jhansi and was not renewed from
Jhansi. The same was exhibited as Ex.C.3. The copy of
original license was filed and the same was exhibited as
Ex.C.2 (A). A perusal of copy of original licence, it is
clear that licence number was 11366/R/Jhansi/88 and was
renewed upto 20.11.2000 and if both licences verified
together, it appears that licence which was held by
respondent No.1 at the time of accident was fake one because
it was not issued from Jhansi. In this way, it is clear
that licence issued in the name of respondent No.1 is fake
one. The Apex Court while dealing with the question that
whether or not the renewal of a fake driving licence does
not transform it into genuine and insurance company was
justified in repudiating the claim, has held in the case of
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prithvi Raj, 2008 ACJ 733
that once the licence is a fake one, then the renewal cannot
take away the effect of fake licence, and therefore, the
insurance company has no liability.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the
learned Claims Tribunal has, without any evidence and
pleadings of the owner, recorded a finding that licence of
the driver / respondent was verified by its owner /
respondent No.3, which is not in accordance with law. The
learned Tribunal has passed the order on conjectures and
surmises and without appreciating the evidence available on
record.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurer is
allowed. Relying upon the above judgment, it is held that
the appellant / insurance company is exonerated and thus not
liable to pay compensation. The impugned order in so far as
its relates to pay compensation of Rs.25000/- by the insurer
and owner, jointly and severally, is set aside. Instead, it
is ordered that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
shall be paid by the owner i.e. respondent No.3. The
appellant / insurer may initiate proceedings for recovery of
compensation, if any, paid by it from the owner. No order
as to costs.
Judge
