LAWS(KAR)-2014-12-143

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. S. RAMALI NAYAK

Decided On December 12, 2014
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
V/S
S. Ramali Nayak Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in these two appeals - -M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., who is the respondent No. 2 before the trial Court, has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Hospet in MVC Nos. 1166/2006 and 1165/2006 respectively in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company instead of fastening the liability exclusively on the owner of the offended vehicle.

(2.) THE brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, the claimant in MVC No. 1165/2006 Subhan Sab and the claimant in MVC No. 1166/2006 Ramali Nayak have filed the claim petitions on facts that, on 07.10.2006 at about 4.30 pm, both the claimants were travelling on their motor bike bearing Registration No. KA 36/L 5054 from Hospet to Venkatagiri Thanda; when they came near Army office at Sandur road at Hospet, respondent No. 1 -driver -cum -owner of the Bajaj CT 100 Auto Rikshaw bearing registration No. KA 16/A -3062 came there and dashed against the motorcycle from the opposite direction. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of said Auto Rickshaw, the accident occurred, due to which the claimants had suffered several injuries.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Counsel Sri. Lakshmikant Reddy, appearing for the respondent owner strenuously contended that, the best evidence available to the 2nd respondent before the trial Court was by way of examination of the RTO and production of the document from the RTO office to show that the respondent No. 1 had no valid and effective driving license. But such exercise has not been done by the respondent No. 1. He also contended that, merely because a notice has been issued to the owner -cum -driver of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No. 1, will also does not absolve the Insurance Company from proving issue No. 2 by producing cogent and convincing evidence before the Court, in order to prove that the respondent No. 1 had no effective driving license as on the date of the accident.