LAWS(HPH)-2012-4-138

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. BATTU AND ANOTHER

Decided On April 12, 2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Appellant
V/S
BATTU AND ANOTHER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan. The factum of accident and the quantum of compensation which has been awarded have not been questioned before me. The ground urged by the Insurance Company in this appeal is that the driver of the accented vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and in that event, the liability could not be apportioned on the Insurance Company.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies upon Ext.RW1/C, which is the driving licence authorising Kamlesh Kumar respondent to drive LMV-NT (light motor vehicle-Non transport). Additional evidence was permitted to be brought on record by this Court by its order dated 12.9.2011 in CMP No. 599 of 2011 filed by the Insurance Company under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 27.9.2011, statement of Rameshwar Singh, Registration Assistant in the office of Registration and Licensing Authority, Shimla Urban was recorded. Opportunity was given to the respondents to lead evidence in rebuttal but no evidence was led. The plea of the Insurance Company was that the endorsement on the licence Ext.RW1/C authorising respondent Kamlesh Kumar to drive light motor vehicle was made for the first time on 23.7.2005 and before this date, there was no such endorsement. The evidence of Rameshwar Singh has established this fact.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies upon the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Lekh Ram and others 2011(2) Shim.LC 419. The facts therein are not any different from the facts of the present appeal as the vehicle involved in that accident is also Mahindera jeep which was registered as light motor vehicle pick-up. In the present case also the class, make and category of the vehicle is the same. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, His Lordship Honourable Mr. Deepak Gupta, J. holds: