- (1.) Claimant now cross-objector-Roshni Devi while going on foot on 28.1.2008 around 12 noon was hit by truck No. HR-31-7001 from the rear side, resulting in injuries to her for which, she preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act') against the driver-Bhupinder Singh, owner-Harpreet Singh present appellants and M/s New India Assurance Company Limited-Insurer of the truck. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal through impugned award dated 21st April, 2011 allowed the claim petition of the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum against owner and the driver while exonerating the Insurer. The same has been challenged by the owner and driver for having exonerated the Insurer on account of non-production of route permit and the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation.
(2.) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records of the case. Though, in the initial stand, owner and the driver have sought to deny the accident, however, on appreciation of the evidence led by the claimant by way of her own testimony as PW1 coupled with medico legal report Ex.P2, FIR Ex.P4 which is supported by testimony of PW2 Dr. S.C. Mittal, elaborating the injuries suffered by her which evidence remained unrebutted as none from the side of the respondents has testified to rebut it.
(3.) Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal on issue No.1 needs to be sustained as to the mode of the accident. It is the Insurer as has been argued on behalf of the owner and driver, who has taken the objection that the driver was not having legal, effective and valid driving licence, thus, the onus was upon the Insurer to have established it so and which is controverted by learned counsel for the Insurer on the ground that the owner failed to bring on record the route permit. Appreciating these arguments the driver has placed on record copy of the driving licence Ex.R1. The Tribunal had drawn the conclusions which are certainly irrefutable that at the time of the accident it was a valid driving licence enabling the driver to drive a truck and the same was commensurate with the requirements of the insurance policy Ex.R4.;