(1.) CM APPL. 16034/2013 IN MAC.APP. 575/2006 CM APPL. 16032/2013 IN MAC.APP. 619/2006 CM APPL. 16033/2013 IN MAC.APP. 577/2006 For the reasons stated in the applications, the appeals are restored to their original numbers. The applications stand disposed of. MAC APPs. 575/2006, 619/2006 & 577/2006
(2.) THE learned counsel for the Appellant has taken me through the testimony of R3W1/Mr. K.K. Sharma, Assistant with the Appellant company and R3W1/Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Clerk, RTO Office, Kuttack. R3W1 simply deposed that a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC was served upon the owner and driver to produce the insurance policy and the driving licence of the driver but the said notice was received back unserved. Ex.R1 was produced to prove that as per the record maintained in the office of RTO, Kuttack., endorsement to drive an HGV was made on the driver's license on 26.12.1998. The learned counsel urges that in the instant case, the accident had taken place on 13.06.1998 but, the endorsement for HGV was made only in December, 1998. Thus, the Appellant amply proved that the driver did not possess a valid driving license to drive the class of vehicle which was involved in the accident on the date of accident. It is urged by the learned counsel that whatever was in its power to prove that there was conscious and willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured was done by it before the Tribunal.
(3.) THE Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue of liability in para 20 of the impugned judgment which is extracted herein below: -