NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JYOTI MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned before this court is the Award dated 11.01.2010 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs.6,73,680/- had been awarded in favour of the claimant. THE contention of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal was that the driving licence of the driver was fake. This contention had also been noted while passing the Award; Insurance Company had prayed for a recovery certificate; this request had been rejected as the court had noted that no such evidence had been brought forthwith by the Insurance Company to substantiate this submission that the driving licence was fake. THE only witness produced by the Insurance Company was the Clerk of the Insurance Company who was examined as R3W1; the Tribunal had noted that no witness had come from the Transport Authority to substantiate this submission.

(2.) APPEAL has been filed primarily on this ground; contention of the Insurance Company being that the driving licence was fake; recovery rights should have been granted in favour of the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this court to a document dated 10.08.2009 which was a reply received to an RTI wherein it had been informed that the driving licence bearing No. W.B.-01-563489 in the name of Ram Babu had not been issued from the office of Public Vehicles Department, Kolkata.

(3.) RECORD thus substantiates that time and again several opportunities had been granted to the respondent to lead evidence but for no cogent reason evidence was not led; court had also specifically stipulated that it would be the exclusive and sole responsibility of the respondent to produce his witnesses on his own; there was no plausible explanation for non-production of the said witnesses on the various dates noted supra; several opportunities having been granted to the respondent, respondent evidence was rightly closed on 24.07.2009; it does not now lie in the mouth of the respondent to state that respondent should be given another opportunity to adduce his witnesses to substantiate this submission that the driving licence of the driver Ram Babu was a fake licence. This has been the defence of the Insurance Company right from the inspection and this had been noted by the Tribunal as far back as on 13.01.2004 when the written statement had been filed by the Insurance Company. Enough opportunity and time having already been granted to the respondent, the Award on this ground suffers from no infirmity.