HUKAM SINGH Vs. BIMLA RANITLP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M. 7933-CII/92 is an application on behalf of the appellant for staying the execution of the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala. With the consent of the parties, I have heard the learned Counsel at length and am disposing of the main case itself, as also the application (C.M. 502-CII/93; Under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) APPELLANT Hukam Singh is the owner of Tractor Swaraj 735, Model 1989, Chasis No. 89342096, Engine No. 39.1038.893976, which was involved in an accident on 28th March, 1990, when the tractor was being driven by the appellant himself. Shri Shadi Lal, husband of Bimla Rani claimant, unfortunately died in the accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, vide its award dated 27th August, 1992, awarded Rs. 2,88,000/- to the claimants. The tractor was insured with the respondent-Company. However, the learned Tribunal found that the Insurance Company was not liable inasmuch as the driving license which was hold by the appellant did not have the entry for driving a tractor. In the application Under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been averred that in fact the petitioner was authorised to drive a tractor by the Lisensing Authority and it was by a Clerical error that the entry for driving a tractor was not made in the licence by the Licensing Authority, Karnal. The appellant applied to the Licensing Authority regarding the clarification of his license bearing No. 52000 dated 21.4.1986 and according to the averments made in the application, the Licensing Authority, Karnal has intimated the appellant as Under: Returned in original Applicant's licence No. is 52000, which is in the name of Hukam Singh S/o Randhir Singh F-425, Meeran Chati, Licence is made for Motor cycle, Scooter and Tractor and fee is Rs. 40/- as per record and has been made from 21.4.1986 to 20.4.1991. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that if a chance is given to him to prove that in fact he held a valid driving license for driving a tractor and it was because of some clerical error that entry was not made in the license issued to him, then the entire liability would fall on the Insurance Company, for which purpose in fact the insurance was got done. The learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that fullest opportunity was given to the appellant and it was for him at the earlier stage to produce the evidence which he now seeks to produce.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, the application Under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil procedure is allowed. The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is set aside to the extent it holds that the appellant did riot hold a valid license for driving a tractor. As far as the quantum of compensation awarded is concerned, the same is not being touched at least is stage.