PURSHOTAM KUMAR Vs. PHULI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the owner of the truck involved in the accident against the claimant- Phooli Devi, who is respondent No. 1 in this case; respondent No. 2 is driver of the truck and respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the truck. The learned Tribunal has by its impugned judgment awarded compensation to the claimant-respondent. However, it absolved the insurance Company, and the appellant and respondent No. 2 were held liable to pay the compensation. Hence this appeal is filed by the owner of the truck.

(2.) The only argument advanced before me is regarding liability of the Insurance Company. Counsel for the appellant argued that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount as it has not proved that the vehicle was not driven by driver holding a valid driving licence. The counsel for the respondent has argued that the driver was not having a driving licence and the insurance company has discharged the burden by proving its certificate to that effect. The certificate is Ex.R-1 on record. It reads as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the certificate cannot be taken into account. He has cited before me the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Dalbir Singh and Ors., (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 755. In that case the defence was also regarding validity of the licence and it was not the case in defence that the licence was forged. The Licensing Authority in that case stated that there was no entry in the register with respect to the issuance of the licence. It further considered therein whether the seal and signature on the driving licence were forged and the register relating to issuance of licence was not produced in the Court. In that case nothing was said by RW-2 with respect to the licence fee and the mere absence of the entry in the register of licensees, held did not prove that the appellant had forged the licence.