SUSHMA VERMA Vs. GARO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was filed by the predecessor in interest of the appellants, who was the owner of the offending vehicle, against the award dtd. 30/7/2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu in claim petition bearing No. 457/Claim, tilted, Garo Devi and others vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others by virtue of which compensation of Rs.8, 94,000.00 lacs along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition has been awarded to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The respondent No.4 was directed to satisfy the award with liberty to recover from the owner of the offending vehicle.

(2.) The appeal has been filed primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly granted the liberty to the respondent No. 4 for recovery of amount awarded in favour of the claimants/respondents, from the Appellant(s). It is averred by the appellant(s) that it is not possible for an owner to hold an enquiry that the driving license of the driver was fake and further that no opportunity was granted to the appellant to lead evidence in rebuttal as after the completion of summer holidays in the court, the work of the court remained paralyzed due to strike by the general public as well as by the advocates, as such, the appellant could not keep track of the proceedings of the case and was not aware of the fate of the application for leading its evidence due to constant strikes by the transporters and imposition of curfew in the Jammu city. It is further stated that the date of decision itself reveals that the said order has been passed on 30/7/2008 at a time when there was a total strike in the Jammu City and also by the Advocates, which continued till the end of August, 2008.

(3.) Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in granting the liberty to recover the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the respondents/claimants from the appellant-Insurance Company as the original appellant had engaged the driver on the basis of license shown to him by respondent No. 5 and it was not possible for the original appellant to hold an enquiry so as to find out whether the license was fake or valid. Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to Amarnath land agitation in the month of July, 2008, the deceased appellant could not keep the track of his case and as such, his evidence was closed.