MUKESH KHOSLA Vs. AMANDEEP KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-owner has preferred the above noticed two appeals against the common impugned award dated 11.04.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), thereby, granting recovery rights to the respondent-National Insurance Company Limited (for short, 'the Insurance Company'), against the appellant. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that on 02.05.2007, Balbir Singh, since deceased, along with Raman Kumar, injured-appellant, while driving motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-08-AC-6093, was coming from Lamba Pind Pathankot Chowk to his residence in New Gobind Nagar. At about 12.15 p.m., when they reached near the flyover of Pathankot chowk on Jalandhar-Amritsar road, the motorcycle driven by Balbir Singh struck against the rear portion of a stationary truck bearing registration No. PB-08-AY-9691, which was parked on the bridge without any safety indication. As a result thereof, both the occupants of the motorcycle fell down. Balbir Singh, the driver, died on the spot, whereas, Raman Kumar, who was the pillion, received serious injuries. The injured was removed to the hospital. A DDR was recorded at police station Division No. 8, Jalandhar. In this background, two claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal, which were decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents vide the impugned Award.

(2.) The twofold arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are that (i) the owner of the offending Truck had observed due diligence at the time of engaging the offending driver in verifying that he was duly licensed to drive the offending vehicle and therefore, recovery rights ought not have been granted to the Insurance Company; (ii) the deceased while driving the motorcycle, struck against the stationary truck parked on the road from the rear side. Therefore, it is a case of contributory negligence. In support of his first contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 3 SCC 297 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 2 RCR(Civ) 278 (S.C.).

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company has argued that it has been proved on record that the original driving licence was a fake document and therefore, the subsequent renewal thereof, is of no consequence. Except the statement of RW3, Harpal Singh, the alleged manager of the appellant-owner, there is nothing to show that the appellant had satisfied himself with regard to the genuineness of the driving licence of the driver of the offending truck.