ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. ABDUL RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurance company has felt aggrieved at the judgement and award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal granting a sum of Rs. 3,74,300.00 with 7% rate of interest to the claimant who claimed to be suffering from accidental injuries and who had claimed Rs. 19,20,000.00. The M.A.C.P. was numbered as 915/98 and the award as dated 2.4.2003. Dates are necessary as base is raised by the claimant that the Tribunal has failed to consider the factum of he being discharge from services.

(2.) The insurance company has neither disputed the accident nor the findings of question of negligence. The insurance company has submitted that despite several opportunities being given to the owner no driving licence was produced except the bare words of the owner who had filed his reply. This is a finding of fact which has been assailed by the appellant. The primary duty of production of a document is with a person who is in possession of the same once the said functions are discharged the owners on the party which states to the otherwise arises. In this case the owner has not discharged his duty, however, that cannot be a factor against the claimant. Even before this court despite the fact that 15 years have elapsed the owner has not cared to appear before this court. In view of the latest decision of the Apex Court reported in Pappu and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, AIR 2018 SC 592, supports may stand and as there was no driving licence filed. No evidence was filed to show that the vehicle was driven by an authorized person having valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle.

(3.) The next ground of challenge is the quantum. It is true that he had only 36% of disability, however, this 36% of disability to a driver has rendered him totally unworthy to drive a vehicle and he was in permanent service. The Tribunal has calculated the same basing its reasons on well settled legal principles enunciated by the Apex Court. I cannot accept the statement of Shri V.C. Dixit that The Tribunal has not considered the judgement of Raj Kr. Vs. Ajay Kr.Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34