- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant- HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. Appellant- Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the Award dated 25. 08. 2017 in T(M. V. )S. No. 362 of 2014 passed by learned District Judge-XII-Cum-M. A. C. T. , Dhanbad, whereby the claim application preferred by the claimants namely, (i) Ranju Kumari, W/o Late Shailesh Kumar Singh, (ii) Writhika, D/o Late Shailesh Kumar Singh, (iii) Varun, S/o Late Shailesh Kumar Singh, both (ii) and (iii) are minors and they are represented through their natural guardian i. e. mother. The applicant no. (4) Sidhu Singh, S/o Late Chamaru Singh and (5) Sudama Devi, W/o Sidhu Singh are parents of the deceased- Shailesh Kumar Singh. Learned Tribunal has calculated a sum of Rs. 64,79,768/- and deducted TDS of Rs. 12,95,954/-, which comes to Rs. 51,83,814/- as such, the amount of Rs. 51,83,814/- has been directed to be paid to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order of the case. The interest has been awarded from the date of order and not from the date of institution.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the genuineness of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle which is a relevant issue in the present claim case, as such, the Insurance Company has suffered as the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle i. e. truck bearing registration no. NL-02L-5572 has not been brought on record and if the driver is not driving the vehicle with a valid licence the entire onus will shift upon the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company cannot be made liable for payment of the compensation amount. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that if the driving licence of the vehicle has not been produced, the presumption will go in favour of the Insurance Company as there is every likelihood of violation of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act , as such, the liability may be shifted upon the owner of the vehicle.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Hon'ble Court has also been pleased to issue notice to the respondents vide order dated 14. 03. 2019, but the notice has been returned as unserved as per the report at Flag-C, as such, notice is necessary. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that under the aforesaid circumstances, the substituted service of notice under order V rule 20 C. P. C. is necessary in this case.;