The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Manju And Ors on 2 September, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                       FAO No.2986 of 2007 (O&M)
                                       Date of decision: 2.9.2009


The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd                       .....Appellant(s)

                                 Versus

Manju and ors.                                       ......Respondent(s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

* * *

Present: Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ajit Attri, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)

CM No.15082-CII of 2007

I have perused the averments made in the application for

condonation of delay of 11 days in filing this appeal.

There are sufficient reasons for condoning the aforesaid delay.

This application is allowed. Delay of 11 days in filing this

appeal is condoned.

FAO No.2986 of 2007 (O&M)

This is insurer’s appeal challenging the impugned award

passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal whereby respondents

No.1 to 3 have been awarded compensation on account of death of one

Lokesh Kumar, caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by respondent No.4.

The only question raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant in this appeal is that the respondent-driver of the offending

vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and therefore,

the insurer-appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay

compensation to the claimant-respondents and thus, the impugned award

is liable to be modified to that extent and the appellant is entitled to be
FAO No.2986 of 2007 (O&M) -2-

absolved from its liability to pay any compensation.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

impugned award.

While deciding issues No.1 and 2, the Tribunal has held that

admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant; however,

there is nothing on record to prove that the respondent-driver of the

offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Even

before this Court, the appellant was unable to point out any material

evidence which has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while

returning the aforesaid finding.

In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal.

Dismissed.

September 2, 2009                           (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps                                                 JUDGE