Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 19.12.2007 passed by 1st Additional District Judge cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal Gumla, whereby and whereunder Appellant was directed to pay compensation to Respondents No. 1 and 2 to the tune of Rs. 1,72,000/ - with 6% interest.
(2.) IT is submitted by Sri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellant(Insurance company) that Tribunal had wrongly directed the Appellant to indemnify the owner. It is submitted that Tribunal come to the conclusion that on the date of accident, driver was not holding valid licence. From Ext -A and Ext. -B it appears that licence of driver was valid from 15.12.2005 to 14.06.2006. It is an admitted position that accident took place on 19.11.2005, thus on the date of accident driver had no valid licence. It is submitted that as per Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, Insurance Company is liable to indemnify owner only if the driver has valid licence. It is submitted that as driver had no valid licence on the date of accident, therefore Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner. On the other hand, Sri Arun Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of owner submits that Insurance Company has not stated in its W.S. that on the date of accident, i.e. on 19.11.2005 driver had no valid licence. Under the said circumstance, any evidence adduced by Insurance Company in this regard is beyond its pleading, therefore same cannot be looked into. It is submitted that since Insurance Company in its W.S. has not disputed that driver had no valid licence there fore Ext.A and Ext.B cannot be looked into evidence. It is submitted that finding of learned Tribunal as pointed out by learned Counsel for Appellant is bad as the same is based on no legal evidence.
(3.) HAVING heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case and also copy of W.S. (produced by Sri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company). From perusal of W.S. filed by Insurance Company I find that Insurance Company has made no averment that on the date of accident, driver was not holding any valid licence. Sri Manish Kumar fairly states that after filing of aforesaid W.S., no application filed by Insurance Company for amendment of earlier W.S. Under the said circumstance, I find that there is no pleading on behalf of Insurance Company in this respect that driver had no valid licence. Thus any evidence laid by Insurance Company in this respect is without pleading, therefore as per settled principle of law, said evidence cannot be looked into. I find that learned court below has committed illegality permitting Insurance Company to prove Ext. A & B.;