Branch Manager United India Ins. ... vs Hakam Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 10254 MP

                                                                     1
                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                                    BEFORE
                                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                              ON THE 28th OF JULY, 2022

                                                         MISC. APPEAL No. 2633 of 2020

                                             Between:-
                                             BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INS. CO.
                                             LTD. THR. IN CHARGE TP HUB UNITED INDIA
                                             INS. CO. LTD. IN FRONT OF AWASIYA KHEL
                                             VIDHYALAYA BHOPAL NAKA SEHORE DIST.
                                             SEHORE RAJKIRAN BUILDING FIRST FLOOR
                                             WRIGHT     TOWN     JABALPUR   (MADHYA
                                             PRADESH)

                                                                                               .....PETITIONER
                                             (BY SHRI T.S. LAMBA, ADVOCATE)

                                             AND

                                       1.    HAKAM SINGH S/O SHRI PHOOLSINGH
                                             VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, VILL.
                                             VEERPUR KOLAR DAM TEH. ICHHAWAR DIST.
                                             SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       2.    SMT.SHANTIBAI W/O HAKAM SINGH, AGED
                                             ABOUT 41 YEARS, VILLAGE VEERPUR KOLA
                                             DAM TAHSIL ICHHAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       3.    RAJESH JANGDA ALIAS NEWLA S/O KALIRAM
                                             JANGDA (BAMANIYA), AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
                                             VILLAGE VEERPUR KOLA DAM TAHSIL
                                             ICHHAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       4.    PARAS STONE CRASHER THROUGH OWNER
                                             AND PROPRIETOR SURENDRA PATEL S/O
                                             GOVIND PRASAD AGE 43 29 MOHAN NAGAR
                                             AYODHYA BYPASS ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                             PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                                             (SHRI MANISH TIWARI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 1
Signature Not Verified                       AND 2)
  SAN




Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
                                            Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
Date: 2022.07.30 12:40:17 IST
                                                                           2
                                       following:
                                                                           ORDER

This appeal is filed by the Insurance company being aggrieved of award dated 17/01/2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sehore in claim case no. 07/2019 on the ground that Driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle on the date of the accident.

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has filed cross-objection for enhancement but admittedly, no court fees has been paid on the cross- objection.

As far as appeal of the insurance company is concerned, it has come on

record that owner had seen the photocopy of the driving license as is admitted by the owner in his cross-examination and, thereafter, deployed concerned driver Rajesh Jangda @ Nevla S/o Kaluram.

In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme court in the case of United India Insurance company Ltd. Vs. Lehru and others (2003)3 SCC 338, once it has come on record that the owner had exercised due diligence while appointing the driver and had seen photocopy of the driving license containing endorsement to drive the heavy vehicle, then in the absence of any evidence to show lack of due diligence on the part of owner, the impugned award directing the insurance company to pay compensation cannot be interfered with.

However, at the same time, it is true that driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving license and, therefore, recovery right is given to the Signature Not Verified SAN Insurance company that if it so desires, it may recover the amount of Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.07.30 12:40:17 IST compensation payable by it from the concerned driver because driver cannot be

exonerated as he was having necessary information of not possessing valid driving license.

As far as cross-objections are concerned, reliance is placed on a judgment of this High Court in the case of Mukesh Sahu vs. Dheeru Lal and others 2022 ACJ 733 wherein it is a settled principle of law that if appropriate court fees has not been paid, then the cross-objection in an appeal is not maintainable.

In the present case, admittedly, court fees has not been paid on the cross-objections and, therefore, they are not maintainable.

Accordingly, the appeal and the cross-objections are disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.07.30 12:40:17 IST