KAMAL DEV Vs. TULSI RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against award dated 25.2.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'MACT'), Ghumarwin, in MAC No. 23- 2 of 2010, whereby learned tribunal below, while allowing claim petition preferred by respondent No. 1/claimant (hereinafter referred to as 'claimant') held him entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,44,858/- alongwith interest at the rate of Rs. 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of depositing of amount. While awarding aforesaid compensation, learned tribunal held the appellant and present respondent No. 2 (owner of the vehicle) liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation jointly and severally.

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that complainant preferred petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before learned MACT, Ghumarwin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Camp at Bilaspur), seeking therein compensation to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs for the injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-23-B-2370, which took place on 28.02.2016 at Ghumani, Chowk, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. Since, factum with regard to accident as well as injuries sustained by claimant is not in dispute, this Court finds it not necessary to give details of the same. Similarly, perusal of impugned award passed by learned MACT below suggests that the claimant successfully proved on record the factum with regard to accident as well as injuries suffered by him in the accident. This Court after having carefully perused the evidence led on record by claimant sees no reason to differ with the findings returned by the learned MACT below qua the amount of compensation. Otherwise also, perusal of impugned award suggests that learned MACT below while determining compensation has dealt with each and every aspect of matter meticulously and there is no scope left for this Court to redetermine the compensation, which has not otherwise been challenged by either of the parties.

(3.) By way of instant appeal, appellant who happened to be driver of the offending vehicle has laid challenge to the impugned award on the ground that findings returned by learned MACT below qua the validity of driving licence possessed by him at the relevant time are contrary to basic provisions as contained in Motor Vehicles Act. Perusal of impugned award suggests that learned Court below taking note of reply filed by respondent Insurance Company, wherein it had specifically stated that it had not issued policy of insurance insuring or contracting to indemnify respondent No. 1 and the vehicle was being driven by unauthorized person, who was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, proceeded to hold that appellant was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and as such, insurance company was not held liable to pay compensation. At this stage, it may be noticed that learned Tribunal below while returning aforesaid finding also took into consideration statement made by Ranbir Singh (RW-1) i.e. Registration Clerk, who deposed before the Court below that licence No. BDL 161/2006 dated 6.7.2006 was issued in the name of Mr. Kamal Dev, present appellant, for driving light motor vehicle Auto Rickshaw Non Transport. Aforesaid witness also produced on record copy of extract of driving licence Ex. RW1/A to demonstrate that licence was issued to respondent No. 2 for driving light motor vehicle three wheeler non-transport w.e.f. 6.7.2006.