M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS application at the instance of the appellant - Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 4.2.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 77 of 2001 whereby compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/ - has been awarded to the claimants.
(2.) THE claimants, who are the widow, four minor sons and daughters, filed the claim petition claiming compensation for the death of Jag Lal Kanu due to fatal road accident. The deceased Jag Lal Kanu was going to village Lokabad on foot with his trolley along with his brother -in -law for selling chat and golgappa. As soon as they reached at village Madaidih near a bridge, a truck bearing registration No. WB -11 -3350 knocked him down from his back, as a result of which the deceased fell down towards right side of G.T. road. The deceased also sustained serious injuries from another truck which was coming from behind and knocked him down and crossed over his body as a result of which he died on the spot. The truck bearing registration No. WB -11 -3350 was insured with the appellant -insurance company. The Tribunal after hearing the parties assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,40,000/ -. Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence on the date accident occurred and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount.
(3.) THE Tribunal while deciding issue No. 5 and 6, has categorically held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence. Para.10 of the judgment is worth to be quoted herein below: So far the valid driving licence of the driver of the offending truck bearing No. WB -11 -3350 is concerned, it appears to me that claimant has brought Ext.7 i.e. the driving licence of the driver Shyam Sundar Pandey being the driver of offending vehicle WB -11 -3350. It is settled law that onus of prove of valid driving licence is upon an Insurance Company if insurer counts itself to be absolved from the liabilities of indemnifying the owner in satisfying the award on the ground that the person driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time did not hold a valid driving licence. It is the settled law that the onus of proving such fact squarely rests upon the insurer and the only of discharging the onus is by the insurer lending positive evidence during the trial of the claim petition to the effect that person driving the vehicle did not in fact possess a driving licence. In the present case, Insurance Company has brought only Ext.A to absolve the liabilities to pay any compensation. Ext.A is particulars alleged to be issued by the Licensing Officer, M.V. Department, Allahabad on a non -judicial stamp of Rs. 10/ -. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, there is nothing brought by the Insurance Company to substantiate that the driver of the offending truck have got no valid driving licence. I find on perusal of the Ext.A that it was issued on 20.7.84 and again renewed on 5.5.2000 to 4.5.2003. Ext.7, driving licence of the driver, reveals that it was also issued on 20.7.84 but there is nothing on the record that whether at the time of occurrence he had not possessed the driving licence. Ext.A does not impress me to come in the conclusion that driver of the offending truck was not valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. The insurer Company has not produced cogent evidence in this context. Accordingly, I held that Insurance Company has failed in establishing that driver of the offending truck has not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident, though onus of proving was upon his shoulder. ;