KULDEEP SINGH Vs. NIHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Owner, Kuldeep Singh by filing the present appeals, which have arisen out of the same accident, has challenged the impugned award dated 27.5.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, (for short "the Tribunal") whereby the appellant -Owner of the offending vehicle alongwith the driver Ram Darsh was held to indemnify the award.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant -Owner of the offending vehicle has contended that the driver Ram Darsh was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He possessed a LMV/HMV driving licence. He further contends that the offending vehicle i.e. TATA Ale, falls in the category of Light Motor Vehicle, and the same was fully insured with the Insurance Company. Thus, the liability has wrongly been fastened upon the appellant. He further submits that the verification report is not an exhibited document and is a mark document. Therefore, the same cannot be considered in evidence. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon 'ble the Supreme Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahesh Kumar and others, 2011 A.C.J. 1606 and Jasbir Kaur v. Om Parkash and others, (2007 -1)145 P.L.R. 528 (S.C.).

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.