United India Insurance Company vs Sumitra And Others

Alok Singh, J

Present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dehradun in MACP No. 132 of 2010 whereby learned Tribunal was pleased to allow the claim petition and awarded compensation to the claimants against appellant Insurance Company.

Brief facts of the present case are that on 08.06.2010 deceased Sardar Singh and PW3 Yashpal Singh were going towards Harbartpur Bazar on motor cycle bearing registration no. UK 07 AA 7128; when they reached Saharanpur Road near T point, one Innova car bearing registration no. HR 02 P 0001 coming from Harbartpur hit the motor cycle of deceased Sardar Singh; as a result of which, deceased Sardar Singh succumbed to his injuries. Claimants filed claim petition and Tribunal allowed the claim petition, as above. Feeling aggrieved, Insurance Company approached this Court.

Heard Mr. Prabhat Pandey, Advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company, Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the respondent no. 1 - claimant and Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent no. 4 - owner of the errant vehicle and perused the record.

Mr. Prabhat Pandey, Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company submits that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence regarding contributory negligence and driver of the errant did not possess valid driving license at the time of accident. Therefore, appellant - Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

Now, let me examine these two aspects. In the accident, total three persons were involved. First deceased Sardar Singh, second PW3 Yashpal Singh, nephew of Sardar Singh and third driver of offending vehicle Surendra Kumar. PW3 Yashpal Singh stated that when they reached T point, Sardar Singh applied break; as a result of which, speed of motor cycle was reduced but the Innova car was in very high speed and it hit on the back side of the motorcycle. Per contra, Surendra Kumar stated that Sardar Singh was driving the motor cycle in a very high speed; he immediately applied the break; his car was stopped and Sardar Singh hit on his standing car.

From perusal of the record, it transpires that back portion of bike was damaged and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that if motor cycle of Sardar Singh hit on the standing motor cycle, then its front portion would be damaged but in the present case, back portion of the bike was damaged, which clearly shows that Innova car hit the bike and driver of the Innova car was at fault and it was not a case of contributory negligence. From perusal of the site plan, it transpires that Innova car hit the motor cycle as a result of which, motor cycle fell far away from the place of accident on the right hand side of the road.

Mr. Prabhat Pandey, Advocate for the appellant submits that Licensing Authority was never remained in Jagadhari and in support of his contention he has placed reliance on the statement of DW Rajendra Kaur, Steno, Yamuna Nagar. DW Rajendra Kaur stated that she cannot tell who has issued license to driver Surendra Kumar and licensing Authority was never remained in Jagadhari.

Mere statement of DW Rajendra Kaur that licensing Authority was never remained in Jagadhari would not be sufficient to prove that licensing authority was not in Jagadhari. Driver Surender Kumar has produced certified copy of the driving license issued by Licensing Authority, Jagadhari, which was renewed by the office ARTO, Saharanpur and valid till 09.12.2019.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the arguments of Mr. Prabhat Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Accordingly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Let lower court record be sent back along with amount, if any, including statutory amount to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.