SUBA SINGH JOGINDER SINGH Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Letters Patent Appeal, the remand order of the learned Single Judge dated May, 13, 1985 has been challenged. It is necessary to have brief look at the facts of the case before arriving at the conclusion whether the remand order is correct or not. The accident resulting into the death of Darshan Singh took place in the premises of Punjab Bone Mills when Truck PUr 1318 was being reversed by Nahar Singh, Driver. The Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the negligence of Nahar Singh who was a cleaner of the Truck. The compensation amount of Rs. 14,400.00 was awarded to the claimants who were widow and children of the deceased. However, Insurance Company was not held liable in respect of the compensation primarily on two grounds. It was found in the first instance that Nahar Singh did not possess the driving licence. It was further found that the place of accident was not a public place as defined in the Motor Vehicle Act. The owners of the Truck M/s Suba Singh Joginder Singh having been held liable, they came up in appeal before this Court.

(2.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge it was argued that the burden lay upon the Insurance Company to prove whether Nahar Singh was holding a valid driving licence or not and since the Insurance Company failed to discharge the onus, the owners of the Truck could not be held liable on the ground that Nahar Singh did not hold a valid driving licence. It was further argued that there was no issue on the" point whether the place of accident was a public place or not. The learned Single Judge after taking overall view of the matter in the larger context of the interest of justice thought it appropriate to remand the case for afresh adjudication on both the points with permission to the Insurance Company to seek an amendment of the written statement to raise a specific plea on the point whether the Mill promises was a public place of not. At the same time, the learned Single Judge observed that the award of Rs. 14,400.00 would stand subject to any modification that may be ultimately made in this behalf by the Tribunal.

(3.) ONCE a specific plea was raised, the Tribunal should have framed an issue on the point. It should further be probed by the Tribunal whether Nahar Singh was holding a valid driving licence or not. After remand both the parties would have ample opportunity to produce the evidence on the points so mentioned in the remand order. Moreover, the learned Single Judge while remanding has rightly secured the amount of compensation for the claimants and they do not suffer. In fact the owners of the Truck should also have no grievance to file the present appeal because after remand they may Be absolved of the liability with which they were saddled by the Tribunal. In fact if any party was aggrieved against the remand order, it was only the Insurance Company which has chosen not to file the appeal before the Division Bench.