NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MANSHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE present appeal by the insurer is directed against the dismissal of its plea by the Tribunal that the man, who was driving the offending vehicle, did not possess a valid driving licence and, hence, it (the appellant insurer) was not liable to pay the compensation, as also the order passed by Claims Tribunal that the offending vehicle being insured with the appellant, it (the appellant) is liable to pay the compensation. Further, grievance of the appellant is that the petition for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, itself was not maintainable in view of the failure of the claimant (injured) to prove the plea that the truck was being driven in a rash manner by the respondent Gurmeet singh, named as its driver.

(2.) FACTS that need to be noticed for the appreciation of the aforesaid two contentions of the appellant are as follows: respondent Mansha Ram was knocked down by a truck, owned by respondent charan Singh, Mansha Ram filed a petition, under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. He alleged that the truck was being driven by the respondent Gurmeet Singh, a son of charan Singh, the owner of the truck. He alleged that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and because of that he sustained the injuries. Admittedly, the truck was insured with appellant for the third party risk.

(3.) CHARAN Singh and Gurmeet Singh, respondents, filed a common written reply, in which it was alleged that the vehicle was being driven not by Gurmeet Singh but by charan Singh, the owner of the truck. The present appellant, who was impleaded as respondent No. 3, in its capacity as insurer, took the plea that Gurmeet Singh, who, as per averments in the petition, was driving the truck, did not possess any driving licence and, hence, it was not liable to pay any compensation.