ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NIRANJAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Insurance Company is in appeal seeking for recovery rights against the owner -insured and the driver on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. A Senior Assistant in the office of D.T.O., Gaziabad Anil Sehgal (RW -1) was examined to show that no licence had been issued to Ram Awadh and the report has been marked as Ex.R -1. The counsel for the driver Shri Mohit Kapoor is reported to have made a statement on 3.10.1996 before the Tribunal, which the Tribunal records in its judgment that the driver had a licence but was unable to trace it. The Tribunal held that the Insurance Company had not summoned Ram Awadh in the witness box and hence adverse inference shall be drawn against the Insurance Company. This is rather a strange reasoning for an inter se dispute between the driver and the insurer. The counsel appointed by the insurance company could not have cited the driver, who was an adversary in the particular case as a witness. In fact, the practice of citing an adversary as a witness has been deprecated by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal ought to have therefore, accepted the evidence tendered on behalf of the insurer as sufficient to hold that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and a mere statement through his counsel that it was untraceable ought to have been seen as a lame excuse and did not advance the case of the driver any better.

(2.) I will set aside the finding that the driver had a valid driving licence and hold that the driver was not duly licenced and the owner had committed a breach of terms of the policy. The Insurance Company shall therefore, be liable to satisfy the award and be entitled to recover the same against the owner -insured and the driver. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.