NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. URJA GALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu dated 31.5.2007, whereby he held the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. The main appeal of the Insurance Company is that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive the same.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the vehicle in question is registered as a Light Goods Vehicle vide registration number Ex. RA. Therefore, it is a transport vehicle. The vehicle is a Mahindra goods vehicle. In the endorsement made on the license, it is mentioned "valid for tractor only". However, thereafter, there is another line added "+ LTV also". The learned Tribunal held that the license was valid for light transport vehicle also. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that since the vehicle was a light motor vehicle, the Insurance Company had to be liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) The question that arises is whether the words "+LTV" on the driving licence have been incorporated by way of forgery or not. RW-1 Mohar Singh is the Licensing Clerk from the Office of the SDM, Kullu. According to him, the licence issued in favour of the driver, i.e. licence No. 21640K was issued on 27.9.2003 and was issued only for driving a tractor. It was valid for a period of three years only. According to him, the endorsement that 'valid for tractor and LTV only' has not been written by their office. However, in his cross examination, he admitted that in Ex. RC the words 'valid for tractor' were written in his hand, but stated that the words ' +LTV' were not written by him. Neither the owner nor the driver stepped into the witness box. The statement of RW-1 clearly shows that the words ' +LTV' were not written by him. They appear to have been incorporated later on. Once the witness has stated that he had not made the endorsement, the driver should have appeared in the witness box to explain how this endorsement was made. Therefore, it is apparent that the license of the driver did not have a valid endorsement permitting him to drive a transport vehicle.