IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.3773 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.8.2009
New India Assurance Company Ltd. .....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Ram Kalan and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
This is insurer’s appeal challenging the impugned award
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul whereby the
claimant-respondents have been awarded compensation on account of
death of one Daya Ram in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and liability to pay
compensation has been fastened upon the insurer along with driver and
owner of the vehicle jointly and severally.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant had disputed its liability to
pay compensation on the ground that respondent No.1 did not possess a
valid driving licence. The onus to prove this issue was upon the appellant.
However, no evidence was produced to show that how the driving licence
was not valid.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before
this Court is that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a licence
only to drive light motor vehicle whereas he was driving the tractor for
which a specific licence is required and therefore, the driver of the
offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence on the day of the
accident and thus, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set
aside/modified qua the appellant.
FAO No.3773 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
impugned award.
In the pleadings, the appellant has not taken any specific plea
as argued in this appeal and the defence raised was that the driver of the
offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. Even to prove the
aforesaid issue, the burden of proof was upon the appellant. No evidence
was led by the appellant and even the point raised before this Court, was
not raised before the Tribunal as from the discussion under this issue, it
clearly emerges that the argument raised before the Tribunal by the
appellant was to the effect that the appellant was not liable to pay
compensation as the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger
which was not accepted. It is well settled that the Insurance Company can
be absolved of its liability to pay compensation only when breach of any
terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy is proved on the part of
insured. However, in the present case, there is no such evidence to prove
any of the breach of conditions of the Insurance Policy.
Thus, I find no merit in this appeal.
Dismissed.
August 31, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE