NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. TASHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. In a vehicular accident involving two buses, one bearing registration No. HP-01/1643 and the other DL-IP/6566, an unmarried young man, named Sonam Tashi died. His parents, respondent No.1 Tashi and respondent No.2 Palmo and a minor brother respondent No.3 Chharing, filed a petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking award of compensation. The owners, the drivers and the insurers of both the buses were impleaded as respondents in that petition. It was alleged that accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of both the buses by their respective drivers. The owner, the driver and the insurer of bus No. HP-01/1643, took the plea that only the driver of the other bus, i.e. bus No. DL-IP/6566, was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. The owner and the driver of bus No. DL-IP/6566, were proceeded against ex-parte as they did not put in appearance, despite service.

(2.) THE insurer of bus No. DL-IP/6566, namely National Insurance Company, the appellant herein, pleaded that the driver of the bus insured with it, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. It was also alleged that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent or rash while driving their respective buses.

(3.) THE present appellant, with whom the bus bearing No. DL-IP/6566, was insured, is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, in so far as it fastens the liability for payment of compensation on to it. It is alleged that the evidence on record establishes that the drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for causing the accident. Further it is alleged that the driving licence of the driver of the bus that was insured with the appellant had not been produced before the Tribunal, because both the owner and the driver were proceeded against ex-parte and that in the absence of driving licence, the appellant (the insurer) could not have been expected to lead any evidence in support of the plea that the driver did not possess any valid and effective driving licence and that the finding should have gone in its favour that there was no valid or effective driving licence.