NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. AINTHU MALLIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant -respondents 1 to 5 filed Misc. Case No. 1197 of 1991 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, claiming compensation as the legal representatives of late Gobinda Mallik. In the claim application, it was alleged that while the deceased was proceeding from Chandikhole side towards Cuttack on 15.8.1991, a bus bearing registration number ORY 969 dashed against the deceased near Barchana Bus Stand. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained severe injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, on the very same day. The claim application was settled during the Lok Adalat subject to confirmation of Insurance Policy and verification of the driving licence. Thereafter, the Insurance Company filed an application before the Claims Tribunal stating that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a proper and effective driving licence, inasmuch as he was not authorised to drive a public service vehicle. It was, therefore, prayed that the compromise in the Lok Adalat should not be given effect to. The claimant -respondents filed an objection and produced a certified. copy of the driving licence. The Claims Tribunal after hearing the objection petition, rejected the contention raised by the appellant by order dated 27.10.1995 and directed that the Insurance Company should pay the compensation amount as per the compromise affected in the Lok Adalat. Against the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) IN this appeal, it has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that the offending vehicle being a passenger carrying bus, the driving licence cannot be accepted as proper and valid unless there is a specific authorisation in the driving licence authorising the driver to drive a transport vehicle. It is further contended that in the absence of any material to indicate that a proper badge as contemplated in the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules had been issued, it must be taken that the driving licence was not valid. It is contended by the counsel for the claimant -respondents that when the matter was settled in Lok Adalat, it was not open to the Insurance Company to raise the question relating to any defect in the driving licence subsequently. It is further submitted that the driving licence is also valid and there is no defect in the driving licence.

(3.) IN course of hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant had produced a certified copy of the Register of Driving Licence issued relating to Banamali Nayak, who was admittedly driving the vehicle. The said certified copy showed that originally the driver was authorised to drive Light Motor Vehicle, but subsequently, he was authorised to drive Heavy Vehicle as paid employee with effect from 17.11.1987. The certified copy further indicated regarding Driving Licence No. 2041/ 91 -BBSR authorising him to drive Public Service Vehicle with effect from 7.7.1992 and regarding issuance of PSV Badge No. 2372/BBSR. In the above back -ground, it was contended by the learned counsel that even though the driver had been authorised to drive heavy goods vehicle as a paid employee, unless he was authorised to drive a public service vehicle on the date of accident, it must be taken that the driver was not authorised to drive the bus in question which was admittedly a public service vehicle. It was further contended that the endorsement relating to D.L.No. 2041/91 -Bhubaneswar, only authorised the driver to drive public service vehicle with effect from 7.7.1992 and since the accident occurred on 15.8.1991, it must be taken that on the date of accident, the driver did not have a valid driving licence authorising him to drive the particular type of transport vehicle. He also produced a letter issued by the R.T.O., Bhubaneswar, indicating that the D.L.No. 2041/91/ Bhubaneswar, actually related to another person, namely, Subash Ch. Sahoo. Since the certified copy produced by the appellant as well as the letter produced by him were apparently contradictory, the learned Standing Counsel (Transport) was requested to produce the relevant registers containing the Driving Licence No. 1500 of Banamali Nayak maintained by the Licensing Authority, Balasore, as well as the Register relating to Issuance of Public Service Badges maintained by the Licensing Authority, Bhubaneswar. Pursuant to the aforesaid request, Shri J. Pal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Transport authorities has produced the Badge Register maintained by the Licensing Authority, Bhubaneswar, from 3.11.1987 to 23.10.1998 and the Register of Driving Licences showing initial issuance of Driving Licence at other places but renewal at Balasore for the year 1987 -88 as maintained by the R.T.O., Balasore. The relevant pages of those two registers were inspected by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as claimant -respondents and the Xerox copy of the relevant page containing serial No. 678 of the Badge Register maintained by the R.T.O., Bhubaneswar containing the relevant entry relating to driver Banamali Nayak and the Xerox copy of the relevant page of the Register of Driving Licences issued, as maintained by the R.T.O., Balasore, are accepted as additional evidence and marked Exts. 1, I/A and 2 respectively, on consent of the counsels for both parties. The register maintained by the R.T.Q., Balasore (Ext. 2), indicates that Banamali Nayak had been originally issued Licence by R.T.O., Phulbani, and subsequently, R.T.O., Balasore, issued Driving Licence No. 1500 of the year 1987 - 88. The said register also indicates that endorsement No. 2041/91 -BBSR, had been made authorising the driver to drive a public service vehicle with effect from 7.2.1992. It is further apparent that while issuing the certified copy which was produced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the letter 'f' was possibly mistaken as '7' and it had been indicated as if, the authorisation was 'w.e.f. 7.7.1992'. The position, however, becomes clear on and reference to the register maintained by the R.T.O., Bhubaneswar, relating to issuance of Public Service Badges. The relevant entry No, 678, marked Ext. I/A relates to 'B. Nayak'. The said entry had been made on '7.2.1991'. Since the aforesaid register is being maintained in due discharge of official business and the serial numbers are given according to the date of issuance of Public Service Badges, there is no reason to dispute its genuineness. The relevant entry No. 678 makes it quite clear that, in fact, the authorisation to drive public service vehicle was made on 7.2.1991 which was possibly wrongly incorporated as '7.2.1992' in the register maintained at Balasore. The confusion was worse confounded by issuing the certified copy where the date was put to be '7.7.1992'. The very fact that entry No. 2041 is of the year 1991. it must be taken that the authorisation could have been made only in the year 199.1, and as such, the date '7.2.1992' put in the register maintained at Balasore Office must have been a clerical mistake for the date '7.2.1991'. The register maintained by the R.T.O., Bhubaneswar (Ext. 1) clearly indicates that PSV Badge No. 2872/Bhubaneswar, had been issued by the Licensing Authority, Bhubaneswar, as per endorsement No. 2041/91, dated 7.2.1991. It is thus apparent from these two registers, extracts of which have been marked as Exhibits that the Driver had a valid driving licence authorising him to drive a public service vehicle on the date of accident, that is to say, 15th August, 1991. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is found to be factually incorrect on the basis of the original registers produced in this Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.