Bishnupada Shil vs Niyati Tanti And Ors

This appeal is filed by the owner of a vehicle, which was involved in an accident. He has challenged a portion of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala dated 24.09.2009 in T.S. (MAC) No.396 of 2003 absolving the insurance company from covering the risk and providing that the insurance company shall pay the amount to the claimants and thereafter recover it from the owner.

Brief facts are as under:

One Karun Tanti was proceeding on foot on the side of the road on 09.04.2003 at about 7.30 in the morning when the bus belonging to the appellant dashed him from behind causing fatal injuries. The claimants-dependants of the deceased therefore filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura claiming compensation from owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident was on account of sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,72,000/- to the claimants. With respect to the liability of the insurance company, the Claims Tribunal noted that the owner in the written statement has not contended as to who was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. The owner has, however, produced a driving licence of one Satya Deb but in absence of the proof of the said license holder being the driver of the vehicle, the insurance company cannot be held liable.

Challenging the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a mere oversight on part of the appellant in not naming Satya Deb as a driver in the written statement. However, his driving licence was on record. The Claims Tribunal should not have absolved the insurance company of its liability.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that as per the police report and the charge sheet filed by the police, the appellant himself was driving the vehicle. He did not have a driving licence. He has therefore tried to rope in another person alleging that he was the driver at the time of accident.

The record would suggest that there were no details of said Sri Satya Deb being the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Even the appellant-owner of the vehicle had not made any such clear statement in the written statement. He had merely produced the driving licence of Satya Deb. Such a driving licence was also not proved and exhibited. By merely producing a copy of the driving licence of an unrelated person the appellant could not establish that Satya Deb, a valid driving licence holder was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In absence of any such evidence, the Claims Tribunal correctly absolved the insurance company. The appellant-owner was served with the proceedings of the claim petition. It was his duty to disclose who was the driver of the bus at the time of the accident and to establish that the driver had a valid driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle. He completely failed in doing so.

In facts of the present case, therefore, I do not find the Claims Tribunal committed any error. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Interim relief is vacated. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Records may be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal.