- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.3.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 84 of 2004 whereby' he has awarded compensation for death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.
(2.) IT appears that while the deceased was coming from his village Golhobar on a motorcycle and when the motorcycle reached Gaytri Colony, Kathara Bazar near Aashnapani more one dumper bearing registration No. BR -20G -0662 being. driven rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle as a result of which the deceased came under the wheel of the dumper and consequently he died on the spot. Defence was taken by the Insurance Company that the driver of dumper was holding licence of light motor vehicle and, therefore, Insurance Company has no liability. The Tribunal framed the specific issue i.e. Issue No. IV as to whether driver of the dumper has a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The said issue was discussed and finding was recorded in para -11 of the judgment. Relevant portion of para -11 is quoted herein -below: - "In the instant case, on perusal of Ext. -X (photocopy of driving license) it appears that D.L. no. 2261/85/F/GRD in the name of Rajendra Prasad was originally issued by D.T.O Giridih and the same was lateron renewed from time to time. There is also mention of "heavy goods vehicle" besides "light motor vehicle". From perusal of EX. -B, it appears that licensing authority Giridih has reported that D.L. no. 2261/85/FI GRD in the name of Rajendra Prasad son of Goberdhan Prasad was issued to drive "light motor vehicle" only. The author of Ext. -B has not been examined in the case D.W -1 Aftab Ahmad, who has proved Ext. B has admitted in para -6 and 7 of his cross -examination that Ext -B was neither written nor signed in his presence. As a matter of fact Ext. B has not been properly proved and therefore it is not admissible in evidence. As stated above that there is mention of heavy goods vehicle besides light motor vehicle on the Xerox copy of the driving licence and therefore, under the circumstance it cannot be held that the driver Rajendra Prasad was holding a license to drive only light motor vehicle. Even it is presumed for the sake of argument that the driver was holding license to drive only light motor vehicle the insurance company has not led any evidence to show that there was a willful breach on the part of the insured in permitting his driver to drive heavy goods vehicle. There is also nothing on record to show that the non -possessing of heavy goods vehicle driving license was the man or contributory cause for the accident. The insurance company has failed to prove that the driver was disqualified or incapacitated to drive heavy goods vehicle at the relevant point of time and the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care. In view of aforesaid discussion this issue is decided in favour of the owner and against the insurance company."
(3.) WE have perused the certificate issued by the D.T.O. and the driving licence annexed by the appellant with the memo of appeal.;