AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Award primarily questioning the liability fixed at the appellant-Insurance
Company despite a specific plea taken by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle-bus owned by 3rd
respondent-Vijay Kumar was allowed to be driven by the driver holding a fake license.
Accident in this case happened on 28-1-2006. The ill fated bus bearing registration No. JK02D/7381, insured with the appellant, was being
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner which met with an accident. Many persons were injured and some of them died. Number of
claim petitions are filed before the Tribunal by the passengers of the vehicle seeking compensation.
Sh. Rupinder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company pleads that in all the cases, the Tribunal granted different
amounts as compensation with interest @ 6% per annum. In all the present appeals, the quantum of compensation is not seriously disputed and,
therefore, award insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, same stands confirmed. Claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount of
compensation, if not already withdrawn.
From the evidence on record, it is pleaded by the counsel for the appellant that it is a clear case of fake license that has not been controverted
by the owner, who though initially appeared before the Tribunal and thereafter abandoned and failed to appear in the adjudication. Same is
recorded in the award passed by the Tribunal that none appeared for the owner and driver. Memorandum of appeal states that the notice was
issued to the driver and owner on the same address by this Court as is shown in the award but the covers were received back with endorsement ''
address insufficient'' . It is, therefore, clear that the owner had extricated himself from the proceedings after initially appearing before the Tribunal.
No purpose will be served trying to find out the address because the person has himself chosen not to appear despite having the knowledge of
proceedings after initially appearing before the Tribunal.
In the light of the oral evidence let in by the appellant-Insurance Company, more particularly, the evidence of the Regional Transport Authority,
which stands unrebutted by the owner or driver, it is to be accepted that it is a case of fake license and since there is valid Insurance Contract
covering the bus which suffered the accident, the Insurance Company would, at the first instance, discharge the award for each one of the claim
and will have right to recover the same from the owner of the bus in the manner prescribed under law.
All the appeals are allowed to the extent as indicated above. Appeal allowed.