AMITAV K.GUPTA,J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the award, dated 28.02.2014, in Claim Case No. 16 of 2009, passed by the District Judge, II-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal (for short MACT), Koderma, directing the appellant/National Insurance Co. Ltd., to pay the compensation amount of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order contending that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license. That the Tribunal has discussed the issue regarding the validity of the license in para - 10 of the impugned judgment and award as follows:- "10. Issue No.5: - Since O.P. No.2 and 3 have appeared and have filed their W.S in which they have specifically stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence bearing no.1422/99 Koderma Previous D/L No.215/93, Ranchi and was valid up to 15.3.12 to this effect. A certificate vide memo no.357 dated 16.3.10 has been issued by the D.T.O., Koderma which is annexed along with the written statement. I have gone through Ext.A which is certificate of driving licence of Sanjay Singh and the entries mentioned in the certificate itself is totally in accordance with the statement in para-2 of the W.S filed on behalf of O.P. No.2 and 3. It also transpires that the O.P. No.1 National Insurance Co. Ltd has also filed certain documents which has been marked as Ext.B and C. They are letter of Deputy Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ranchi to the Branch Manager national Insurance Co. Ltd. Koderma marked as Ext.B and Ext.C is the investigation report submitted by one Sunil Kumar. Although, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 has submitted that the earlier D/L issued by the D.T.O. Ranchi in the year 1993 in favour of Sanjay Singh was false and fabricated but unfortunately O.P. No.1 has not produced any certificate with regard to forge and fabricated D/L earlier issued to Sanjay Singh, driver of the offending vehicle from Ranchi in the year 1993. Since Ext.A has been issued by the DTO, Koderma by which the D/L of the driver of the offending vehicle appears to be genuine one. Hence, this Tribunal find and holds that this issue is accordingly decided in favour of O.P.No.2 and 3 and against the O.P. No.1". It is urged that the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Laxmi Narayan Dhut, reported in 2007 (2) MAC 965 SC, has held in para- 36 as follows :- "36. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the decision in Swaran Singh's case (supra) has no application to own damage cases. The effect of fake licence has to be considered in the light of what has been stated by this Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla and Ors., 2001 (4) S.C.C. 342 Once the licence is fake one the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake licence. It was observed in Kamla's case (supra) as follows : 12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit striped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any Licensing Authority to "renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry" No Licensing Authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine." It is contended that it is evident from para -10 of the impugned judgment that the appellant/Insurance Company (O.P. No.1 in the court below) had produced the letter of the investigator and the report which are Ext. B and Ext. C respectively, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the D/L of the driver of the offending vehicle namely, Sanjay Singh, was not issued by the D.T.O. Ranchi. Thus, in the given circumstances the renewal of such fake licence by the D.T.O. Koderma, cannot transform the fake licence to be genuine in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., (Supra). On the above ground, it is argued that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there has been blatant violation of terms and conditions of the policy, hence, the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability to pay the compensation on the Insurance Company. That in the given factual situation while fastening the liability on the Insurer the Tribunal should have given the liberty, to the Insurance Company, to recover the compensation amount from the owners of the offending vehicle.
(3.) On perusal of the record it is manifest that, in the present appeal, despite valid service of notice, the owners have not appeared before this Court. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent/claimants has submitted that till date not a single farthing of the compensation amount has been paid to the claimants, save and except the interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.;