NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PRITILATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of M. A. Nos. 340, 341 of 2000 and M. A. Nos. 358 to 390 of 2000 and Civil Revision Nos. 216 to 228 of 2000 filed by the non-appticant/new India Insurance Co. , challenging the impugned awards passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratlam on 16-9-99 in Claim Cases Nos. 71, 125, 106, 62, 64, 88, 63, 110, 97, 117, 152, 150, 89, 90, 147, 116, 47, 100, 103, 92, 66, 59, 155, 91, 76, 102, 79, 69, 73, 68, 104, 61, 120, 60, 108 and 98, 96, 67, 154, 115, 111, 145, 80, 109, 95, 144, 148, 54 of 1997.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that on 19-12-97 Sumit Travel's bus No. M. P. 14/8585 driven by respondent/non-applicant Rajaram @ Raju, owned by respondent/non-applicant No. 2 Manoharlal and insured with respondent No. 3, at about 12:30 p. m. , on the bridge of Jhaman river, on Rawati-Shivgarh road fell down in the river, as a result of which nine passengers died and several passengers sustained serious injuries. The L. Rs. of the deceased persons and injured persons filed claim cases. The case of the respondents/claimants was that the non-applicant driver drove the bus in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which it turned turtle on the bridge and fell down in Jhaman river. The driver Rajaram @ Raju remained absent and was proceeded ex-parte in all claim cases. Respondents owner and Insurance Co. inter alia took the defence that driver Rajaram had no valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. It negativing the case of the Insurance Co. , held that Rajaram was having valid driving licence and awarded compensation to the claimants. Hence, these appeals and revisions.

(3.) SHRI Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Co. , submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding that the respondent/non-applicant Rajaram was having valid licence. He submitted that the licence produced by Rajaram was issued from the office of R. T. O. , Jhansi in the year 1993, the number of which was 1495. On enquiry, the R. T. O. , Jhansi informed that this licence was not issued to Rajaram from his office and it was fake one. This licence was wrongly renewed by R. T. O. , Mandsaur. He submitted that the fake licence on renewal, does not become valid licence and under such circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation as the respondent-owner committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. On the other hand, Shri C. L. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned award and submitted that Rajaram was having genuine licence and it was renewed by R. T. O. , Mandsaur from time to time.