Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) BY way of this appeal, the insurer of the vehicle involved in accident seeks to question the award dt. 18.11.2006 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh in Claim Case No. 89/2004 awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,03,650/ - to the injured claimant, in relation to the finding on issue No. 4 whereby the Tribunal has rejected its contention for exoneration on the ground of violation of policy condition because driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was found not renewed on the date of accident; and in relation to the finding on issue No. 3 on quantification of compensation.
(2.) ON 11.06.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. in the city of Ratangarh on the road from Ghantaghar to PWD Rest House the claimant, about 53 years of age and serving as cashier in government employment earning monthly salary of Rs. 10,448/ -, while riding his motorcycle sustained bodily injuries on being hit by a truck bearing registration No. RJ 14 G 2223; the truck ran over and crushed his right leg that was required to be amputated below the knee. In the claim for compensation made by the injured -claimant against driver, owner, and insurer of the offending truck, the driver and owner while stating general denial of claim averments asserted the fault of the claimant motorcyclist for the accident. The insurer, present appellant, while denying the claim averments put to contention the quantum of compensation claimed and also submitted that the claimant was not conversant with motorcycle driving and the truck driver was not holding valid driving licence. After framing of relevant issues and taking evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal observed in issue No. 1 that the claimant has established that the accident occurred for rash and negligent wrong side driving of the offending truck and then, the truck driver was not produced in evidence. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident occurred for rash and negligent driving of the truck, found that the truck was being driven at the directions and in the employment of its owner.
(3.) IN issue No. 4, the Tribunal referred to the oral and documentary evidence produced on record and found that the driving licence of the truck driver was valid from 15.12.1997 to 14.12.2000 and from 29.12.2000 to 14.12.2003 but thereafter was renewed on 16.05.2005 though the accident occurred on 11.06.2004. The Tribunal observed that the driver was qualified to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle from 15.12.1997 to 14.12.2003 and his such driving licence has been renewed from 16.05.2005 to 15.05.2008 and merely for the gap in renewal, the driver could not be taken incompetent to drive the vehicle. With these observations and findings, the Tribunal decided issue No. 4 against the appellant -insurer.;