BEELA RAM Vs. VISHNU KUMAR KHANDELWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has contended that during the course of the proceeding before the learned Tribunal, the appellant could not produce the driving licence of the driver. THErefore, the learned Tribunal had concluded that the driver did not have a valid licence for driving the offending vehicle. Thus, it has granted the recovery rights in favour of the Insurance Company. THE learned counsel pleads that a copy of the driving licence is being produced along with the application and the same should be taken on record.

(3.) MR. Ritesh Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the reason for giving the recovery rights to the Insurance Company is that according to the learned Tribunal the driver did not have a valid driving licence for driving a tractor. Through an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the learned counsel has tried to bring the driving licence of the driver on record. According to the driving licence, the driver was permitted to drive MCY with gear, Tractor. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the driver did have a valid licence when the alleged accident took place. Hence, the learned Tribunal was not justified in drawing its conclusion that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is unjustified in giving the recovery rights to the Insurance Company.