NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO Vs. LILY BORAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 17th December, 2003 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guwahati in M.A.C. case (DJK) No. 942 of 2003. The learned Member by the impugned award directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 8,40,460 as compensation to the claimants for death of Prafulla Borah, a Havildar of Special Branch of Assam Police on 1st July, 2002 in a motor accident involving Bus No. AS-01/D-8886. This appeal has been filed reiterating the defence of the Insurance Company in terms of Section 149(2)(a) ii of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) MR . S.S. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence to drive the vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as ordered by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. With reference to observations made in the award as well the evidence of DW 1 Manjit Das and DW 2 Atul Hazarika. Mr. Sharma submitted that the driver Krishanlal Purvey obtained a licence from the concerned office at Darbhanga, Bihar and it was renewed by the office of the DTO, Jorhat till 2nd August, 1993. There was no renewal subsequent to the aforesaid date and, therefore, on the date of accident i.e. on 1st July, 2002, the vehicle was driven by the driver without any valid licence.

(3.) AT this stage, we would like to refer to the evidence on record. It would appear that Smt. Lily Borah, wife of the deceased stated that her husband, a Havildar in the Special Branch of Assam Police was travelling from Guwahati to North Lakhimpur by Bus No. AS-01/B-8886 on 1st July, 2002. The bus overturned on the roadside after hitting a tree and her husband died at the place of accident. She also exhibited the police report (Exhibit-1), the post-mortem report (Exhibit-2), the pay certificate (Exhibit-3) and the photostat copy of the F.I.R. (Exhibit-4). This witness was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. It appears that no question was asked to this witness about the genuineness of the police report which was tendered in evidence in original. From the police report Exhibit-1, we find that the Investigating Officer in his report against column No. 7 (B) has clearly mentioned that the driving licence No. 9309/Jorhat was valid upto 20th September, 2002. DWs 1 and 2 in their evidence have categorically stated that the licence was renewed by the office of the DTO, Jorhat till 2nd August, 1993. The evidence of DW 1 Manjit Das end that of DW 2 Atul Hazarika to this effect are based on the records available In the office of the DTO, Jorhat, if the licernce was renewed after 1993 from any other office within or outside the State, It Is not likely to be reflected In records of the office of the DTO, Jorhat.