On 10 November 2022, the Karnataka High Court in the case of The Regional manager v. Master Tharun C. Gowda comprising of HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH expounds that the Burden lies on Insurance Company to Prove the Driver Licence or Documents are fake.
Facts of the Case
The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that a student, who is aged about 8 years, met with an accident. On 26.12.2010 at about 2:30 p.m, the petitioner after carefully observing the traffic movements was a pedestrian on the extreme left side on Koppa to Hosagavi road, Abalavadi Village, in front of the house of the petitioner, the driver of Tata Ace 207 Tempo bearing registration No.KA-02-A9301, came from Hosagavi road side in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him, as a result, he had sustained injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Vikram Hospital at Mandya, wherein, after the first aid treatment he was referred to Vikram Jeeva Hospital at Mysuru, wherein, he took treatment as an inpatient.
The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the claim petition in part and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance Company.
Insurance Company: Petitioner Contentions
Insurance Company in his arguments is that, the driver was not having the valid driving license and the driving license, which was marked, is a fake driving license. Exs.R1 to R6, which are marked through RW.2, clearly discloses that the documents were fake documents. It is also the contention that Exs.R1 to R6 clearly establishes that the driving license produced at Ex.R7 by the Insured was fake and the burden was on him to prove the same; the same has not been done. Instead of that, the Tribunal has committed an error that the RTO has not been examined. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.
Respondent Contentions
Respondent contends before the Court that Ex.R7 is the original driving license. The Tribunal rightly disbelieved the case of the respondents since they have not proved the same by examining the author of the document. The learned counsel also would submit that Ex.R3, which is produced before the Court discloses in respect of A.S. Nataranjan and the driver of the vehicle is only A. Natarajan. Hence, an endorsement-Ex.R3 was given. Ex.R3 will not come to the aid of the respondents.
Court Observation
The Court in its Observation stated that in the absence of proving of the document that the same is a fake document, the question of interfering with the finding of the Tribunal does not arise. The burden lies on the Insurance Company to prove the same except relying upon the endorsement, nothing is placed on record and also the author of the document has not been examined.
The Court further stated that, “I do not find any force in the contention of the Insurance Company that the driving license was a fake document. Unless the same is proved as a fake document, the shifting of the liability on the owner does not arise”.
Hence the Appeal Was dismissed.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
