AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil
This appeal by the owner directed against the impugned judgment arid award dated 10th May 2011, passed in WC. No. 786/2010, by the District Judge, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-2, I Fast Track Court, Shimoga, (for short, Tribunall, for setting aside the liability fastened on him. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of 27.55 lakhs against the appellant/owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 10th May, 2011, The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of 255,080/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit: and directed the appellant owner to satisfy the award, on the ground that the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid and effective Driving Licence, as on the date the valid and effective Dri Ning Licence, as on the date of accident. Being aggrieved by the liability fastened on him, the appellant owner of the offending vehicle is in appeal before this Court, seeking to set aside the liability fastened on him and to modify the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
After perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and the original records placed before me, it is seen that the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has awarded compensation of Rs.55,080/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him and directed the appellant owner of the offending vehicle to satisfy the same. At paragraph 17, the Tribunal has specifically observed that the burden of proving lies on the insurer, but it has not entered into the witness box nor led any evidence to show that as on the date of accident, the owner was not having the valid and effective driving licence and there was no privity of contract between the claimant and the insurer. The claimant has also not produced any documents to show that as on the date of the accident, the rider of the motor cycle was having the valid and effective Driving Licence as per the notice issued by the police which is marked as Ex.P1. Further, there is no mention of the name of the owner in the insurance policy. Therefore, as on the date of accident, there was no privity of contract between the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle.
Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the entire liability on the appellant owner of the offending vehicle to satisfy the award. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant owner has approached this Court, seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.
However, after careful perusal of the papers placed before me, it is seen that, the learned counsel appearing for appellant owner, has in fact, filed I.A.2/2011, on 16th December 2011, seeking permission to produce the additional documentary evidence, wherein he has produced a copy of the Driving Licence before this Court. It appears the said document is not produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal, after adducing oral/ documentary evidence by the parties and the matter has to be re-heard, after affording opportunity to all the parties. Only thereafter the liability can be fixed on the person concerned. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be set aside. In the light of the discussion made above, the appeal filed by the appellant owner is allowed in part.
The impugned judgment and award dated 10th May 2011 passed in MVC No. 786/ 2010 by the District Judge, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-2, I Fast Track Court, Shin-toga, is hereby set aside;
Matter stands remanded back to the Tribunal, for reconsideration afresh after considering the additional dome-tent/ s to be produced by the parties and after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned.
Appellant/ owner and second respondent/ Inver are permitted to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence, if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
In case such application/ s is/ are filed by them, the Tribunal is directed to receive the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, in compliance of the direction issued above.
The amount, if any, in deposit by the owner of the offending vehicle shall be refunded to him, forthwith.
Office to draw award, accordingly,