SURENDRA SINGH Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two FAFOs arising out of a single accident which took place on 8.3.1999, have been filed against the common award dated 17.3.2007 rendered in Motor Accident Case No. 249 of 1999 filed by one Ashok Kumar (injured) and Smt. Rama Devi and others, who were the legal representatives of the deceased Jagat Narain. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while allowing the claim petitions, has granted recovery rights in favour of the insurance company and for coming to such a conclusion, issues were drawn with respect to the validity of insurance policy and the validity of driving licence as issue no. 2 and 3. The aforesaid two appeals filed by the owner before this Court raise a dispute with respect to the aforesaid two issues and no other issue was either argued or falls for consideration.

(2.) The recovery rights have been given to the insurer against the owner of the offending vehicle in both the cases arising out of injury as well as death. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that once there was a valid insurance policy operating as on the date of accident, documents in relation whereof were duly produced before the Tribunal, there was no reason or justification for the Tribunal to have recorded a self contradictory finding in the award to the effect that the offending vehicle was not insured as on the date of accident, as such the said finding is perverse. This Court in order to test the submissions advanced, has gone through the original record of Case No. 213 of 2009 summoned before this Court and it is found that a copy of the original policy bearing premium receipt number as on 24.6.1999 is on record. Once the original policy is in the list of documents filed before the Tribunal then in such a situation, recording a contradictory finding to raise a doubt about the validity of insurance of the vehicle on the relevant date is clearly erroneous and baseless. The contradictory finding recorded by the Tribunal that the vehicle was not insured being perverse, is hereby set aside and the vehicle is treated to be covered under the insurance policy particularly when the same remained unquestionable. Recording of a finding in relation to insurance policy in favour of the owner (appellant herein) goes to establish only one ground but in so far as the other ground of driving licence and its validity is concerned, the same being decided against the appellants, is strongly contested by the insurance company, represented by Sri U.P.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel.

(3.) The Tribunal while deciding the claims has found that though the photocopy of the driving licence is said to have been issued on 12.5.1986 was placed on record but the date of its validity was not legible which lead to a doubt for recording a finding in favour of the appellant. It is worthwhile to mention that the driver of the offending vehicle has not participated in the proceedings and the original licence was also not filed before the Tribunal so as to clear the doubt which was noticed on the photocopy of the driving licence. As per the stand taken by the insurance company in its written statement filed before the Tribunal, the validity of the driving licence was disputed. The issue framed on this aspect of the matter was duly gone into by the Tribunal which appears to be assailed before this Court baselessly and without bringing on record any prima facie or conclusive evidence on the basis of which this Court may come to a different conclusion.