BHAGSU TRAVELS Vs. VEENA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment all these three appeals are being disposed of together. 29th

(2.) AN accident occurred on July, 2001 involving two vehicles, HP-22-6899 and HP-39A-1149. Whereas claimants-respondents Karan Verma and Anju Bala in FAOs No. 274 of 2005 and 269 of 2006, have both, in their respective claim petitions claimed compensation from the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on account of injuries sustained by them in the aforesaid accident, Veena Kumari, claimant- respondent in FAO No. 231 of 2005 claimed compensation from the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the loss suffered by her on account of death of her daughter Babli in the said accident. Whereas MACP No.68-D/2001 filed by Karan Verma, claimant-respondent was tried and disposed of by Shri C.B.Barowalia, MACT-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, the Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? other two claim petitions being MACT Petition No. 64- G/II/2001 and MACP No. 65-G/II-2001 were tried and disposed of by Shri R.L.Raghu, MACT-I, Kangra at Dharamshala. FAO No. 274 of 2005 relates to and arises out of MACP No.68-D/2001 and the other two FAOs, being FAO No. 231 of 2005 and FAO No. 269 of 2006 relate to and arise out of MACT Petition No. 64- G/II/2001 and MACP No. 65-G/II of 2001, respectively.

(3.) IN MACP No. 68-D/2001 Shri C.B.Barowalia, MACT-II, vide his judgment and award dated 22nd March, 2005, while dealing with the aforesaid issue, being Issue No.3, that is to say, "Whether the drivers of the bus had not possessed effective and valid driving licenses? OPR", relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Lehru and others, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 338, and based on the discussion that even though the licence produced by Balbir Singh driver may or may not have been a genuine document took the view that at the time of his being engaged as a driver by M/s Bhagsu Travels, Rajiv Kumar Mahajan, its owner had taken care to see that he held a driving licence, which on the face of it looked genuine. Relying on the ratio in the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment and holding that the owner could not be considered guilty of the breach of the policy condition relating to a valid driving licence by the driver, fastened the liability to pay the award amount upon the Insurer-National Insurance Company.