ICICI Lombard Insurance Company vs Sandeep Kumar and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

CM No. 15079-CII of 2013

Delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons given in the application.

FAO No. 3724 of 2013

This is an appeal brought by the insurer, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 18.03.2013 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short ''learned Tribunal''). The claim petition had been brought by Sandeep Kumar for the injuries he suffered in a road side accident that took place on 23.04.2010 under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned Tribunal vide the impugned award has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,94,800/- as compensation in favour of the claimants with interest.

The only grouse of the appellant-insurer is that the Tribunal has wrongly rejected the report of District Transport Officer, Gurdaspur vide which the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was reported to be fake.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the District Transport Officer, Gurdaspur had made a report Ex. R-2 vide which the driving licence of respondent no. 1 was reported to be fake. According to him, Jogender Kulhar, RW-1 was examined to prove this report. He has further submitted that for reasons that are not valid, learned Tribunal has rejected this document and has returned the finding against the appellant regarding the genuineness of the driving licence of respondent no. 1

In para no. 13 of the award, learned Tribunal has discussed the point. He has noticed the statement of Jogender Kulhar, RW-1, who has admitted the fact that the verification report Ex. R-2 was neither addressed to him, nor it was signed and forwarded by the investigator. This shows that Jogender Kulhar is in no way connected with the preparation of the document. No one was examined to prove this document. In the absence of any evidence to prove it, document Ex. R-2 could not be relied upon. Hence, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in discarding this document. If this document is ignored, it can be said that there is no evidence on the record, led by the insurance company, to prove that the driving licence of respondent no. 1 was fake.

For the aforesaid reasons, learned Tribunal has rightly returned the finding on this question against the insurance company.

No other point was urged before me. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.