- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent -Insurance Company and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the admission stage. We are not issuing any notice to the claimants as because they will not be affected by the judgment and award, which is going to be passed.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Chaibasa in Compensation Case No. 22 of 2007 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,04,500/ - and directed the appellant -owner of the vehicle to pay the said compensation amount on the ground that the appellant -owner of the vehicle failed to produce the Insurance policy by which the vehicle was said to be insured with the respondent -Insurance Company. The claimants are the parents and minor brothers, who have claimed compensation on account of death of the deceased in an accident caused by a truck. The owner of the vehicle took the plea that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. For better appreciation, we shall reproduce some of the paragraphs of the impugned judgment, which will speak itself. Paragraph 11 of the judgment reads as under: 11. I find that O.P. No. 1 has challenged that he is not insurer of the truck and if so the terms and conditions of policy is to be complied and secondly O.P. No. 1 has also challenged the validity of driving license of the driver but on the record I find that neither original insurance policy nor the driving license have been proved by O.P. No. 2 & 3, when the matter is under challenge then O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 are required to prove there but all these are lacking on the record and this is decided accordingly.
(3.) THE appellant -owner of the vehicle did not produce the Insurance policy. The Tribunal, therefore, observed as under: As I have discussed above that O.P. No. 2 owner and O.P. No. 3 driver although appeared in this case have filed show cause but they have not proved their contention through evidence. The O.P. No. 1 Insurance Company has challenged the insurance policy and driving license of the driver. No paper has been filed regarding driving license by O.P. No. 3. So far the insurance is concerned it is the onus of O.P. No. 2 owner to file the original insurance paper and get it exhibited. But they have failed to do so and this tribunal is bound to act upon the evidence available on the record. Since O.P. No. 2 owner and O.P. No. 3 have failed to submit papers of insurance policy and valid driving license so that liability to pay compensation to claimants would devolve upon O.P. No. 2 and Insurance Company shall not be held liable in such cases (Vimal Karla v. Madhan Lal reported in : 1996 ACJ 658). The driver is not necessary party and owner of the truck may be held liable : (2008 ACJ 838).;