- (1.) Since these two appeals one by Insurance Company (M.A. No. 32 of 2009) and another by claimants (MA No. 18 of 2009) have been filed against the same judgment and award, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: A claim case was filed by the claimants claiming compensation for the death of one Bipin Bihari Paul in a Motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 17.2.2006 while the deceased' was coming by his bycycle from Telipara, Hirapur, he was dashed by Maruti car bearing registration No. JH 10D/8689 which was driven by a lady rashly and negligently. The respondent-owner of the vehicle appeared and filed Written Statement stating, inter alia, mat the vehicle was insured with the appellant- Insurance Company and the lady driving the vehicle was his wife and holding a valid driving licence. The appellant-Insurance Company on the other hand took a defence that the lady who was driving the vehicle was not holding a valid driving license. The tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the evidence recorded a finding that the vehicle was being driven by Sapna Haldar @ Rupna Haldar who was holding a valid driving licence. Accordingly the claim case was allowed.
(3.) Mr. G.C. Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that at the relevant time of accident the vehicle was being driven by Rupna Haldar, who was not holding a valid driving licence. Learned Counsel further submitted that on the basis of F.I.R a criminal case was instituted against Rupna Haldar. However, on question, Mr Jha submitted that in the Criminal case instituted against Rupna Haldar, Sapna Haldar appeared and she claims herself to be Rupna Haldar @ Sapna Haldar Wife of Tapas Haldar.;