ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi. The learned Tribunal on the consideration of the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,14,000/- which included Rs.30,000/- as the value of the goods being carried in the accidented vehicle. This aspect of the case need not detain this court any further as by judgment of the Full Court in FAO. No.97 of 1999 and FAO. No. 202 of 1999 decided 6.1.2010 held:

(2.) Since the goods were being carried in the vehicle which met with the accident, the award of Rs.30,000/- cannot be sustained and it is held accordingly.

(3.) The second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that the driver of the vehicle Sh. Bhagat Ram was not possessed of a valid driving license. Learned counsel submits that the statement of RW4 Hans Raj is conclusive on this aspect. This witness stated that the endorsement on the driving license Ext.DB, authorizing the driver Bhagat Ram to drive heavy transport vehicle has not been entered in the register maintained by the Authority. I cannot accept this submission for the reason that in cross-examination, this witness states that there are two Licensing Authorities in Shimla and this witness is unable to say anything about the endorsement Exts.PW4/A and PW4/B authorizing the petitioner to drive heavy transport vehicle having been made by the other authority with whom this witness is not working nor familiar with the record. According to him, this endorsement could have been made by the other Licensing Authority functioning in Shimla. He also says that he cannot identify the stamp Ext.DB of the Licensing Authority where he is posted. This evidence has rightly prompted the learned Tribunal to hold that it does not 3 conclusively establish that the driver was not possessed of a valid driving license. I have seen Ext.DB and do find that it has been endorsed by the Licensing Authority authorizing the petitioner to drive heavy transport vehicle. There is thus no force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the same is accordingly rejected.