SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. ORIENAL INSRUANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) This F.A.F.O. is directed against the award dated 16.6.2011 given by M.A.C.T./A.D.J., Court No. 4, Bulandshahr in MAC. No. 112 of 2009 Gyan Chand and others v. Surendra Kumar and others. The claim petition was filed for compensation in respect of injuries suffered by Km. Babita applicant No. 3, respondent No. 5 in this appeal who was 4 years at the time of accident. The parents were also applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in the claim petition, they are respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in this F.A.F.O. The claim was made for Rs. 30,00,000/- however it was allowed for Rs. 75,000/-, the 10% of the said amount was to be paid in cash and remaining 90% was to be paid in the form of 10 years F.D.R. with some Nationalised Bank in the name of Km. Babita. The liability to pay compensation was fastened only upon, the appellants who are owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Prem Pal, appellant No. 2 driver was initially impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this appeal. However, an application was filed for his transposition as appellant No. 2, which has been allowed today, hence he is appellant No. 2 in this F.A.F.O.

(3.) The insurance company-respondent No. 1 was completely absolved of the liability to pay the compensation even though the offending vehicle was insured with it, on the ground that driving licence of the driver-appellant No. 2 was fake. A Photo copy of the licence was filed, containing the name of the appellant No. 2 Prem Pal. However, from the records of the R.T.O. and from the evidence of an official of the said department it was proved that the licence was issued in the name of Naresh Kumar son of Yadram.