F. A. O. No. 2551 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : F. A. O. No. 2551 of 2009
Date of Decision : May 21, 2009
National Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant
Vs.
Gurdayal Kaur and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. R. C. Kapoor, Advocate
for the appellant.
* * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
This is appeal by insurer of the offending vehicle challenging
Award dated 04.02.2009 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Hisar thereby awarding compensation of Rs.2,01,000/- to claimant-
respondent no.1 Gurdayal Kaur on her petition filed under Section 163-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short – the Act).
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
case file.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the vehicle in
question, which stood insured with the appellant, was not involved in the
accident. The contention cannot be accepted on behalf of insurer-appellant
because admittedly, the appellant had not taken permission from the
F. A. O. No. 2551 of 2009 2
Tribunal to contest the petition by filing application under Section 170 of
the Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that Raghbir
Singh (respondent no.2 herein/respondent no.1 in the claim petition), driver
of the vehicle, was not having any driving license and therefore, owner
insured Ramji Lal (respondent no.3 herein) contravened the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy and consequently, the appellant-insurer
should be absolved of its liability to satisfy the Award. To buttress this
argument, it was also contended that the appellant had moved application
before the Tribunal for summoning the driver as witness along with driving
license, but no order was passed thereon by the Tribunal. The contention
cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant states that on the
application for summoning respondent no.1 as witness with driving license,
the Tribunal ordered deposit of requisite diet money. Consequently, it
cannot be said that no order was passed on the application. As regards the
contention that the driver was not having any driving license, the same
cannot be accepted because the driver Raghbir Singh appeared in the
witness-box as RW-1 and was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant-
insurer, but not even a single question was put to him whether he possessed
any driving license or not, as is evident from the statement of the said
witness read out by learned counsel for the appellant-insurer himself. In
view thereof, it cannot be said that the said driver was not holding any
driving license. On the other hand, adverse inference arises against the
appellant on this aspect because on its behalf, no question was put to the
concerned witness regarding his driving license.
In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit in the instant appeal,
the same is hereby dismissed.
The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant with the
F. A. O. No. 2551 of 2009 3
Registry of this Court while preferring this appeal be remitted to the
Tribunal.
May 21, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE