NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. SATYA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer is in appeal against the award dated 25.4.2003 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, in MAC No. 32 -S/2 of 1997 awarding Rs. 6,93,040 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the petition till realization to respondents No. 1 to 5 as per their shares mentioned in the award.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondents No. 1 to 5, who are widow, son and daughters of deceased Nand Lal Verma petition claiming Rs. 10 lac compensation on account of death of Nand Lal Verma who died in an accident on 5.12.1996 and another amount of Rs. 40,000/ - on account of loss of properties at the time of accident, involving scooter No. HP -51 -0265 and truck No. HR -38 -2065. The deceased was driving the scooter. It has been alleged that respondent No. 6 was the owner and respondent No. 7 was driving the truck rashly and negligently at the time of accident. The deceased was 49 years old and was working as Senior Assistant in the office of H.P. General Industries Corporation at the time of accident and was drawing salary Rs. 7090/ - per month. In addition, he was earning Rs. 60,000/ - per annual from agriculture.

(3.) I have heard Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 and gone through the record, none appeared for other respondents. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that owner in his own statement -in -chief, has not stated that he took precautions before employing respondent No. 7 as driver on the truck. He has not stated that he verified the particulars of the licence of respondent No. 7 before his engagement. The issue No. 4 has been specifically decided by holding that driver of the truck was not holding valid licence, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in directing the insurer to pay the compensation. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that on its face, driving licence Ext.RW -3/A dated 14.05.1996 is fake and is in violation of Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ˜the Act). The learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 has supported the impugned award and has submitted that it has been proved on record that owner of the truck was vigilant enough to verify the particulars of the driving licence. There was no patent illegality in the driving licence and the owner of the truck at the time of engagement of respondent No. 1 as driver was not aware that respondent No. 7 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle and the licence Ext.RW -3/A is fake.