National Insurance Co. Ltd. Petitioner v. Smt. Renue

ORDER

This is an appeal by the National Insurance Company Limited against the order dated 04.02.2000 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 36/95 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- as total compensation to the respondent No. 1.claimant in an injury case.

2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are on fateful day of 15.05.1995 at about 7.00 a.m when the respondent and husband were going from Bhilai to Durg on scooter bearing No. M.P 24/7935, at the same time, the respondent No. 2, who was driving TATA tipper bearing registration M.P 24 C/2072 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No. 3 and insured by the appellant, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the scooter after hitting a tree. Due to such dash, both the respondent No. 1 and her husband got serious injuries, as a result of which, the husband of respondent No. 1 died instantaneously.

3. As against the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- sought by the respondent No. 1 by filing claim petition 166 of the M.V Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 15.5.1995, the learned Claims Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties and submissions made by them, awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. The Tribunal further directed respondents No. 1 to 3 to pay compensation amount jointly and severally. It is this order, which is under challenge by the insurer/appellant.

4. Shri B.N Nande, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in this case, doctor has not been examined, therefore, no compensation should be awarded to the claimant. The next argument is that the driver was holding a licence No. 11366 which was found to be fake, after due investigation. According to him, the learned Tribunal had appointed a commissioner to take the evidence of the persons working in the Office of Regional Transport Authority at Jhansi and Shri N.L Shrivastava, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner to enquire about the matter about the verification of the licence. The said Advocate conducted enquiry and took the evidence of Yogendra Kumar Garg C.W.1 and Deepak Khare C.W.2 in which they stated that the Licensing Authority, Jhansi did not issue any licence to Bhagwan Singh whereas it was issued in the name of one Sajjan Singh. Despite all this, the learned Tribunal did not rely nor did consider the evidence of above witnesses. It was further argued that the learned Claims Tribunal on conjectures and surmises has recorded a finding that the owner of the offending vehicle has after verification of the licence held by his driver Bhagwan Singh allowed him to drive the offending vehicle. On this point, the Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the insurer, which is not in accordance with law.

5. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 supported the impugned judgment.

6. Having heard rival submissions of the parties, I have perused the record of the Claims Tribunal and impugned order. A perusal of pleadings and evidence of respondent No. 1.claimant would clearly reveal that she sustained injuries in the accident on 15.05.1995 caused by respondent No. 2. It is clear from the record that no doctor has been examined. But on this count, no compensation should be awarded is not proper. After perusal of evidence of Smt. Renue A.W.1, it is clear that she was admitted in Sector - 9, Hospital, Bhilai where she remained for a period of 13 days for the injuries sustained by her on head and stomach. It is further evident from her evidence that one intestine was found out and on this point, she did not contradict in her cross-examination. In rebuttal, neither the insurer nor the owner could adduce evidence that she has not sustained injuries in the motor accident. Considering the injuries sustained by her in the accident and also lost her husband in that accident, no doubt, she would have definitely suffered pain and mental agony. Of course, she could not produce any medical bills but considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by respondent No. 1 in the motor accident and some amount could have been spent on the treatment, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as total compensation in favour of respondent.

7. Now so far as the question that remains for consideration is as to who is responsible to pay compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the learned Claims Tribunal did not see the evidence adduced by the Commissioner, who was appointed by the learned Tribunal. After perusal of evidence of Yogendra Kumar Garg C.W.1 and Deepak Khare C.W.2, it is clear that the driving licence No. 1366 was not issued from Jhansi and was not renewed from Jhansi. The same was exhibited as Ex.C.3 The copy of original license was filed and the same was exhibited as Ex.C.2 (A). A perusal of copy of original licence, it is clear that licence number was 11366.R/Jhansi/88 and was renewed upto 20.11.2000 and if both licences verified together, it appears that licence which was held by respondent No. 1 at the time of accident was fake one because it was not issued from Jhansi. In this way, it is clear that licence issued in the name of respondent No. 1 is fake one. The Apex Court while dealing with the question that whether or not the renewal of a fake driving licence does not transform it into genuine and insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim, has held in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Prithvi Raj., 2008 ACJ 733 that once the licence is a fake one, then the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake licence, and therefore, the insurance company has no liability.

8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal has, without any evidence and pleadings of the owner, recorded a finding that licence of the driver/respondent was verified by its owner/respondent No. 3, which is not in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal has passed the order on conjectures and surmises and without appreciating the evidence available on record.

9. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurer is allowed. Relying upon the above judgment, it is held that the appellant/insurance company is exonerated and thus not liable to pay compensation. The impugned order in so far as its relates to pay compensation of Rs. 25000/- by the insurer and owner, jointly and severally, is set aside. Instead, it is ordered that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by the owner i.e respondent No. 3. The appellant/insurer may initiate proceedings for recovery of compensation, if any, paid by it from the owner. No order as to costs.