IFFCO TOKIOGENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. KAMLABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurance Company has challenged the judgement and award of the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Panchmahal at Godhra dtd. 25/4/2019 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 1700 of 2008, primarily on the ground that learned Tribunal has not appreciated the legal defence raised by the appellant-insurance company, in the written statement as well as legal contention raised during the arguments. It was stated before the Tribunal that the driver did not have any valid license to drive the vehicle on the date of accident. Therefore, no liability could have been laid down on the Insurance Company to pay any compensation. He further prays that an application below Exh. 49 was moved to examine the RTO officer, driver and owner to prove the defence of no valid/ invalid driving license. Further there was no permit of chhakdo rickshaw .

(2.) Mr.Rathin Raval, learned advocate for the appellant referring to the order passed below Exh. 49 by M.A.C.T (Main) Panchmahal at Godhara dtd. 5/3/2019, has further submitted that when the driver and owner do not appear before the Court than learned Tribunal was required to permit the insurance company to adduce the evidence to the defend, where, the Insurance Company had very categorically laid down that there was no valid license, and hence, exhibit 49 was moved to examine the driver and owner of the vehicle i.e. Rickshaw Chhakda bearing registration No. GJ-17-U- 5680 and even the RTO Officer, Vadodara in connection with the issue so raised, to give evidence in connection with the DL No. GJ17/006605/00, if at all he is connected with the vehicle. Mr. Raval has further submitted that learned Tribunal had rejected the application on 5/3/2019 and thereafter on 25/4/2019 by passing the judgement has placed the liability upon the insurance company to pay the compensation money.

(3.) Mr. Amit C.Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for Mr. U.M.Shastri, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that this Court can even if considering the submissions so raised can pass an order of pay and recover so that the claimant could not be suffered due to carelessness of the driver and owner of the vehicle. He has further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the directions given in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. and others reported in 2010 ACJ 455