(1.) These are two appeals which have been filed by the insurance company impugning award dated 29.1.2010 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs. 77,759 along with interest had been directed to be paid to the two petitioners, K.K. Kohli and Nisha Kohli, both of whom had suffered injuries in an accident which had occurred on 12.5.2005. K.K. Kohli and Nisha Kohli were the victims in this accident; K.K. Kohli was driving a two-wheeler scooter on which his wife was the pillion rider; a Santro car collided with their scooter as a result of which the parties sustained grievous injuries.
(2.) The Tribunal had passed the award against the insurance company. Recovery rights had not been granted against the owner/driver of the vehicle which is the grievance now in the present appeals. The contention raised by the appellant is that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence; in the absence of an effective driving licence, the insurance company in fact could not be burdened with any liability; this is first submission; in the alternate even if liability is foisted upon the insurance company, the insurance company should have been granted recovery rights against the owner/driver.
(3.) Record shows that the driver of the vehicle, namely, Alok Kumar, had expired in the course of the proceedings and the learned Tribunal has recorded this fact on 10.5.2007; on 14.5.2008 since Alok Kumar (driver) had expired and there being no dispute to his identity, permission had been granted to the claimants not to substitute the legal representatives of driver, respondent No. 1. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that in these circumstances when the legal heirs of driver Alok Kumar were not known and Alok Kumar having died, notice under Order 12, rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code could have only been issued to the owner and not to the driver and the judgments relied upon by the learned Tribunal in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonia, 2009 2 ACC 44 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirabjit Kaur, 2010 ACJ 121, are both distinct; it is pointed out that in both these cases, the owner of offending vehicle had come into the witness-box and stated that the driver did have a valid and effective driving licence. Contention being that the impugned award suffers from an infirmity and is liable to be modified and recovery rights be granted to the appellant.