NARAIN DASS BHAGWAN DASS Vs. BHARPAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy raised in the appeal here is with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company for the compensation awarded. A sum of Rs. 10,000/-, as claimed, was awarded to the claimants, they being the widow and children of Roop Lal deceased, the victim of the rash and negligent driving of the truck HRD 7756. Both sukha Singh, the truck driver, as also the owner Narain Dass were held liable for payment of the compensation awarded. No liability was, however, fastened upon the Insurance Company as it was held that Sukha Singh was not an authorised driver.

(2.) No exception can be taken to the Insurance Company being absolved from liability. The owner Narain Dass, when he appeared in the witness box, no doubt deposed that Sukha Singh had held a valid driving licence and that he drove the truck under his instructions, but quite to the contrary was his stand in his written statement where it was stated that Sukha Singh was not the driver of this truck. Narain Dass cannot now be permitted to shift his position in this matter. When once a party has taken a definite stand in the pleadings, it cannot be permitted to turn round and set up a different case in evidence and then take advantage of it. Faced with this, counsel for the appellant sought to advert to the later portion of the written statement where it was recorded that Sukha Singh was the driver of the truck and that he was an employee of the truck owner. It is pertinent to note that this part of the written statement reads so on account of the interpolations made therein. Counsel could not say when and how these interpolations came to be made. Without them, it is clear that the stand as taken in the written statement was that Sukha Singh was not in the service of the truck owner. Not without significance here is the further fact that Sukh Singh was not examined as a witness nor was his driving licence produced in Court. These being the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the Insurance Company was not liable.

(3.) This appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 300/-.