LAWS(RAJ)-2021-3-180

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

Decided On March 05, 2021
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
V/S
ASHOK KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 26.02.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh in MACT Case No. 18/2000, whereby learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the claimants and awarded Rs.63,000/- as compensation in their favour on account of the injuries sustained by Ashok Kumar in the accident which occurred on 25.10.1999.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.3 are clear, categoric and specific wherein, the fact that the driver of the bus was not holding a valid driving license on the date of accident, is proved. He submits that the driver of the bus was having a license to drive the light motor vehicle and by an endorsement, he was also permitted to drive the heavy motor vehicle with effect from 07.03.1996 to 06.08.1999 and thereafter the same was renewed from 28.10.1999 to 27.10.2002. He further submits that in view of the specific and clear findings on Issue No.3, the driver of the bus was not holding the valid driving license to drive the bus on the date of accident. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error while deciding Issue No.3 against the Insurance Company and holding that even if the license was not renewed, the driver of the bus was competent to drive the vehicle. He, therefore, submits that the findings on Issue No.3 are contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari vs United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2008 ACJ 2654. Learned counsel, while replying to the submissions made on cross objections, submits that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case also does not require any interference by this Court as the Tribunal awarded a 'just compensation' to the appellant for the injuries suffered in this case.