J.C.VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 5.4.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli camp Shahpura (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 669/1993 wherein an award of Rs. 4,00,000/ - has been ordered to be paid as compensation.
(2.) THERE was a head -on collision of bus No. KL -9/9828 on the night of 26/ 27th February, 1992 which bus was being driven by Vijay kumar with truck No. DIL 323 causing severe injuries to one Rahim Khan, a passenger of the bus who died at the spot. Other passenger Mohd. Abu Bakar @ Mohd. also sustained injuries. The truck belonged to one Nanak Chand Sethi and was being driven by Guru Bachan Singh. An application for compensation was moved by the parents and the sister of the deceased Rahim Khan who is said to be looking after the business of his father in the name of Patla Motor Service. Necessary issues in regard to negligence of driving of the bus, quantum of compensation and about the preliminary objections being taken by the Insurance Company were framed. The Tribunal had come to the definite finding that in the circumstances mentioned therein the bus was being driven negligently and rashly. The finding was based on oral as well as documentary evidence. It was also found that the truck was being driven by the driver who was employee of the respondent owner. However, on issue No. 4, arguments were addressed to the effect that the truck driver had no valid licence. Evidence was produced by the Insurance Company by producing one Jagdish Kumar as defence witness Who had gone to Gauhati for verifying the licence of the driver of the truck and had come to know that the licence in possession of the truck driver had not been issued by the registering authority of Gauhati. The Tribunal had not accepted the contention of the Insurance Company on the ground that the report Ex. NA -6 has not been exhibited through the person who had made such report, nor any official from the office of the District Transport Office has been produced and relying on the authority reported in 1997 CPJ 238 wherein in such situation when neither the official of the DTO was produced nor any rifidavit of the officer concerned was filed, it was held that such report cannot be exhibited.
(3.) THE parties had produced the copies on the evidence for perusal. Copy of driving licence is on record as Ex. NA -2 issued by Gauhati authority with the address of the driver of the truck of Gauhati itself for driving the heavy transport vehicle. One Vinay Tandon surveyor and assessor of private agency had written a letter to the DTO, Kamrup, Gauhati for verification of the driving licence on 4.6.1994 exhibited as Ex. NA -6 which was returned back with the endorsement that licence No. 4798 Of 1988 had not been issued from that office. It is not denied that the person who had endorsed with endorsement has not been produced, rather there is no document whatsoever produced by the Insurance Company direct from the office of the DTO as to link such report with DTO itself. This document was got produced through one Jagdish Kumar, an employee of the Insurance Company, working as Assistant. He had in his statement clearly admitted that he did not know as to who had signed on the endorsement Ex. NA -6, nor such document was made or signed in his presence, nor it was issued under his instructions. He also admits that he had never seen or met the DTO Gauhati nor even he had ever met Vinay Tandon who had written to the DTO for making such report and had received such report in return. In such situation, it cannot be said that the order of the Tribunal to the effect that the Insurance Company had failed to prove that the driver of offending truck was not in possession of valid licence cannot be held to be unjustified. I fully agree with the finding of the Tribunal in this respect. Almost in similar circumstances this Court in CM A No. 1749/99 and other connected CM As vide its order dated 29.8.2000 had held that it is incumbent on the Insurance Company to prove the validity of the driving licence by calling the concerned register or official/officer from the registering authority. No other point has been raised or argued. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the Civil Misc. Appeal and the same is dismissed.;