NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RENU BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A claim petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, 'the M.A.C.T.') claiming compensation on account of death of Rajinder Pal alleged to be 38 years of age at the time of his death. He was working as lineman in the Punjab State Electricity Board. It was alleged that on 16.3.2002, deceased Rajinder Pal was standing on the Bhawanigarh Road, Mehlan Chowk when at about 2 p.m. a truck No. PIC 8547 came from Sunam side at a fast speed and caused the accident. The driver of the truck was proceeded ex parte as he did not appear. Owner of the truck contested the petition and alleged that the truck was not involved in the accident. The insurance company had also filed a separate written statement and denied the accident. It was also pleaded that driver had no valid driving licence and the amount claimed was excessive. M.A.C.T. has held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PIC 8547.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Suri on behalf of the insurance company. It is submitted by the learned counsel that after the death of the deceased the claimants received family pension on account of the death of the deceased and the Tribunal has wrongly not reduced the amount from the compensation awarded. It is also submitted by Mr. Suri that the M.A.C.T. has wrongly held that the insurance company has failed to prove that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence. A perusal of the finding recorded by the M.A.C.T. on issue No. 3 shows that the driver did not come in the witness-box. However, the owner of the vehicle tendered a copy of verification Exh. R-1, which was issued by the Licensing Authority, Ropar that driver licence No. S379-R/1999-2000 was issued on 26.10.99 which was valid till 25.10.2002 for driving motor cycle-LTV in the name of Gurdev Singh, i.e., the alleged driver. During the trial, the insurance company had moved an application for direction to the owner to produce the original licence of the driver. Since the driving licence was in the possession of the driver, the owner could not produce the same. We are of the considered opinion that the M.A.C.T. has rightly held that the insurance company has failed to produce the necessary evidence to show that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. Even the clerk of the Licensing Authority was not summoned to appear as a witness.

(3.) Mr. Suri has relied on a judgment of this court in the case of Inder Singh v. Ram Niwas, (2004-1) 136 PLR 254, in support of the submission that the family pension which has been received by the claimants should have been deducted in determining the dependency of the claimants. It is undoubtedly true that in the aforesaid judgment, it has been held as follows: