AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals are filed by Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, challenging the liability saddled on it by the MACT, Bangalore, dated 16.12.2011, passed in MVC Nos. 3092, 3093, 3094, 3095 and 3096/2010.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder:
Five claim petitions were lodged by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Venkataramu, Basavaraje Gowda and other three persons who were injured in a road traffic accident dated 29.12.2009 between Tanjavur-Trichy main road at Tamil Nadu, on account of rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No. KA-04-A-9418. According to the claimants, the deceased Venkataramu, Basavaraje Gowda and other three claimants were on a pilgrimage and when the car was being driven by one Rajendra, between Tanjavur and Trichy main road, the driver lost control over the car and dashed against the road side tree. As a result of which, two persons died and three persons in the car were injured in the accident. The driver of the car also died. Therefore, the claim petitions were lodged.
The appellant-insurance company admitted the policy issued by it in favour of the owner of the car, Sri. Umesh and further contended that the driver of the car deceased, Rajendra had not possessed a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the liability cannot be saddled on the insurance company.
In order to prove their respective contentions, the owner of the car was examined as RW-2. He has deposed before the court that he knew the deceased Rajendra several years before the accident and he had possessed a valid driving licence and before appointing him as a driver, he had seen the license obtained by the deceased Rajendra and in the accident the driving licence was lost and he further deposed that if he is able to secure the driving license, he would produce the same before the court. This piece of evidence has not been seriously challenged by the insurance company. In the circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver had a valid driving licence. Since he also died in the accident, the owner is unable to produce the same. More over the insurance company has not taken any steps calling upon the owner to produce the driving licence of the deceased. Therefore, the court held that the liability has to be saddled on the insurance company. Challenging the correctness of the same, the present appeals are filed.
Having heard the counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered in these appeal is:
"Whether the Tribunal is justified in fixing the liability on the appellant-insurance company though the owner of the vehicle had failed to produce the driving license of the deceased Rajendra?"
The owner of the vehicle who has been examined as RW-2 in detail has deposed that even before he could purchase the vehicle in question, the deceased Rajendra was working as a taxi driver and he has seen his driving and while appointing him as a driver, he has seen the driving license possessed by Rajendra and it is his specific case that Rajendra used to carry the driving license along with the vehicle documents whenever he used to take the vehicle on heir and it is his further case that in the instant case, the driving license of the deceased is lost. Therefore, he is unable to produce the same.
To controvert the evidence of RW-2, the appellant-insurance company has not placed any evidence. Therefore, we are of the view that Rajendra is not alive, it is difficult for any court to expect the owner of the car to produce the driving license of the deceased. Normal practice is that when a driver is appointed, the owner of the vehicle would verify whether the driver possesses a driving license or not. Normally a copy of the driving license will not be maintained by the owner of the vehicle if he has only one car with him. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the tribunal is justified in fixing the liability on the insurance company.
We could have appreciated the arguments of Sri. P.B. Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant for not producing the documents provided, Rajendra was alive. He was the best person to say whether he had possessed the driving license or even if he had lost the original driving license, he would have got the duplicate driving license from the RTO office.
In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
The amount in deposit, is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal.