DAULAT RAM Vs. ONAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) These two appeals are arising from the award dated 19.4.2003 by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur decided two claim cases no.44/1996 and 107/1996 and awarded compensation to the claimants. The claimants have not preferred any appeal for enhancement of any appeal nor they have preferred any cross objection, therefore, the issue involved in these appeals, as submitted by the appellant, is that the Tribunal has committed error of fact in holding that the driver of the vehicle was Daula s/o Khema whereas in fact, according to the owner, the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time was Daya Ram s/o Bhera Dangi. Daya Ram had valid driving license to drive the vehicle. If the finding of the Tribunal is reversed, then the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants in place of the owner. Another ground is that if the finding of the Tribunal is maintained and the driver of vehicle was Daula, then he was holding learner's driving license. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh reported in 2004 ACJ 1, learner's license is also valid license and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company vehemently submitted that the Tribunal, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence held that the driver of vehicle at the relevant time of accident was Daula and not Daya Ram. The finding of the Tribunal is based on not only the documents relating to the criminal proceedings but is based on the admission of owner of the vehicle as the owner of the vehicle in response to the notice under Section 133 of the MV Act himself admitted that Daula was driver at the relevant time. So far as the other ground is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent company vehemently submitted that the appellant did not challenge the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the respondent company from the liability and the appellant only challenged the findings on issues no.1 and 2 recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, no relief can be granted.