AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—This appeal is filed by the owner against fastening the liability on him holding that the driver has no valid driving licence while dealing with M.V.C. No. 111/2004.
One Muresha Basha sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 5.7.2003 at about 7.15 p.m. on N.H.4 near Hoskote Check-Post of Bangalore East Taluk involving a Maruti Van in which he was travelling. At that time, the bus bearing No. KA.19.AB.1577 came in a negligent manner and dashed against the Maruthi Van. Due to the impact, claimant sustained injuries. The matter was contested, the tribunal having raised as many as three issues for consideration held that accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the bus in question and awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,45,500/-, however, fastened the liability on respondent No. 1-owner and respondents 3 and 4 as joint and several, by exempting insurer from paying compensation on the ground of non-production of valid driving licence. The Tribunal has also noted the evidence of one Indumathi who has sworn to the effect that 3rd respondent has not produced the copy of the driving licence and 3rd respondent is none other than the Managing Director of Palm Grow Tourist.
The learned counsel appearing for the owner has submitted that the copy of the driving licence has been given to the Insurance Company and the driving licence is valid as on the date of the accident and the same is also produced before the Court. Learned counsel submitted that despite handing over the copy of the driving licence to the insurer regarding its validity as on the date of the accident, false affidavit has been filed and sworn to before the Court. It is nothing but forgery. Accordingly, demonstrating as per the endorsement issued by the R.T.O., that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence as on the date of the accident, as such, question of exempting the insurance company''s liability does not arise. The contention there is no valid driving licence, is without any basis. Accordingly, he has sought to allow the appeal.
Heard the counsel for the insurer.
It is submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal.
It is noticed that there is a IA filed by the appellant owner along with the affidavit, before this Court demonstrating the validity of the driving licence as on the date of the accident i.e. during 2003 and also there is a letter posted to the Oriental Insurance Company by him on 17.8.2004 regarding the validity of the driving licence, pursuant to which the Regional Transport Authority, Mangalore has issued an endorsement to the effect that as on the date of the accident there is a valid driving licence which is also produced. The endorsement issued is regarding validity of the driving licence to drive both light and heavy motor vehicle. In view of the same, it has to be held the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner to pay the compensation. The insurer of the vehicle is directed to pay the compensation with interest as ordered by the Tribunal. Further, it is for the Insurance Company to take note of the false deposition before this Court without proper verification as to the non-production of driving licence.
The appeal is allowed. While upholding the order of payment of compensation to the claimant, as there is a valid insurance coverage as on the date of accident and also there is valid driving licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question, the insurer shall satisfy the compensation.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant owner be refunded to him.