Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J. & D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 5633 of 2005 appellant Prawej Ansari against the order [See 2008 (1) JCR 597 (JHR)J by which the learned single Judge has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner-appellant to challenge the findings recorded in the award of the Tribunal dated 16.4.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gumla, by which the application of the insurance company was allowed granting liberty to insurance company to realize the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle, i.e., the petitioner herein, who, according to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, had allowed his vehicle to be driven by a minor without driving licence, which had caused the accident. Learned single Judge has categorically ordered that petitioner, owner of the vehicle, will have opportunity to raise the question of law but he will not be at liberty to assail the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner-appellant, who is admittedly the owner of the vehicle, submitted that the application filed by the insurance company claiming recovery of the amount from the owner was entertained without any information to the counsel for the owner of the vehicle, as a result of which, the Tribunal finally ordered that the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal shall be payable by the owner of the vehicle. It was submitted that although on the subsequent occasion, the plea of the insurance company was entertained to recover the amount from the appellant, owner, but as in the initial award the insurance company had been held liable to pay the amount of compensation, the findings recorded against the owner of the vehicle had not been assailed before the higher forum. It has been submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal suffers from perversity as the appellant, owner, did not get ample opportunity to assail the findings of the Tribunal.
(3.) In response to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company Mr. Manish Kumar submitted that the owner in spite of service of notice did not contest the matter although he had appeared before the Tribunal at one stage." It was further explained that a categorical finding has been recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the owner of the vehicle had allowed his vehicle to be driven by a minor who was not even possessing a driving licence and this finding was based on a document which was produced even before the criminal court. It was, therefore, submitted that the owner of the vehicle cannot be permitted to assail the findings recorded by the Tribunal especially when he has been granted liberty to raise only the question of law by the learned single Judge while directing for remand of the matter before the Tribunal.;