UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the award dated 3.5.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal awarding a sum of Rs. 1,01,000 as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on account of the death of their father Parsa Ram who died in a motor accident on 23.9.1997.

(2.) The only ground on which the award has been challenged before us is that the driver of the offending vehicle did not produce his driving licence on the record of the case and, therefore, it could not be said that he possessed a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Surinder Paul, 1990 ACJ 940 (P&H), to contend that the insurance company cannot be held liable where the driver did not produce the driving licence. We are unable to accept this contention. The plea of the insurance company before the Tribunal was that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. Issue No. 3 was framed to the effect whether respondent No. 1 (driver of the vehicle) was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. This onus to prove this issue was on the insurance company. The driver of the offending vehicle did not appear as his own witness and even though the insurance company summoned him to appear as a witness he neither accepted the summons nor stepped into the witness-box. The fact remains that the driving licence has not been produced on the record. The question that arises for consideration in such circumstances is whether it can be said that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. The answer to such a question has to be in the negative. When the licence itself has not been produced how can anyone say that the licence was not a valid one. It is not the case of either of the parties that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a licence. The plea taken is that his licence was not valid and that is why the issue framed was whether the driver possessed a valid driving licence. Since the driver did not appear in the witness-box and the licence has not been produced, the insurance company has failed to prove that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in deciding this issue against the insurance company. In Surinder Paul's case (supra) the plea of the insurance company from the very beginning was that the driver of the vehicle therein did not hold a driving licence at all and even evidence was led in support of that plea. The Tribunal in that case did not find that issue in favour of the insurance company but the learned single Judge who heard the appeal reversed the finding on that issue and held that the driver did not possess a licence at all. It was on the basis of this finding that the insurance company was held not liable. In the case before us the plea of the insurance company is that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence and it has failed to substantiate this plea. If the driver has not produced his driving licence, the claimants are not at fault and the fact remains that the insurance company has failed to prove that he did not possess a valid driving licence. The insurance company must, therefore, be held liable to indemnify the insured.

(3.) No other point was raised.