Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bachchu Singh on 19 June, 2025
1 M.A.NO.1146 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 19th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1146 of 2011
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
BACHCHU SINGH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Ms. Vandana Kekre - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Arun Sharma - learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company u/s. 173
(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 27.04.2011
passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tehsil Ambha,
District Morena in Claim Case No. 04/2009 whereby award of Rs.
34,000/- has been passed in favour of the claimant with interest @ 7%
per annum from the date of claim application.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, in
brief, are that on 26.05.2008, when respondent No.3/claimant was
going towards Porsa Ambha Road near Chambal Colony,
respondent No.1- Bachchu Singh, while driving a motorcycle
bearing registration No. 060-M-8808 in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed the motorcycle of respondent No.3/claimant, as a
result of which he sustained grievous injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 have not
turned up before this Court.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company that the driver of the offending
vehicle- Banchchu Singh was not having valid and effect licence;
hence, in absence of valid and effective driving licence insurance
company ought to be exonerated from from his liability. It is further
submitted that two witnesses have been examined in this respect on
behalf of non-applicant No.3. Dilip (DW/1) has categorically stated
in his statement that driving licence of Bachchu Singh bearing
No.M.P.-06-R-2008-0059739 was issued on 23.8.2008. Though he
stated that the validity of this licence was started from 26.5.2008
upto 25.5.2013 but on 26.5.2008 at 8:30 AM this licence was not
effective; therefore, at the time of accident, there is no valid licence
with the driver of the offending vehicle. Anil Kumar (DW/2) has
also reiterated the fact who is the Administrative Officer of
appellant- Insurance Company. No evidence has been adduced on
behalf of the claimant side or by driver and owner of the offending
vehicle. Hence, it is proved that at the time of accident there was no
valid and effective driving licence with the driver of the offending
vehicle. In paragraph 18 of the award, the learned Tribunal stated
that the driving licence (Ex. D/2) was issued on 26.05.2008, which
is apparently erroneous, as the date of issuance mentioned on
licence (Ex. D/2) is 23.08.2008. Therefore, she prayed to exonerate
the insurance company from the awarded compensation.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Rajkumar,
submitted that the Tribunal framed Issue No.3 regarding whether
respondent No.1 had a valid and effective driving licence at the
time of the accident, and whether its absence constituted a breach of
policy conditions. The burden to prove this was on the
appellant/Insurance Company, but it failed to produce sufficient
evidence. Although Dilip Kumar (DW1) stated that the licence was
issued on 23.08.2008, he admitted that it was valid on 26.05.2008.
As far as the validity at 8:30 AM on 26.05.2008 is concerned, the
witness has not shown any rules or any instructions on the licence
that it would become effective at a specific time. Since the day of
26.8.2008 began at midnight, the licence ought to be effective from
the intervening night of 25-26.5.2008 and therefore, it was valid at
the time of the incident, which occurred at 8:30 AM on 26.05.2008.
It is further submitted that in cross-examination, Dilip (DW/1)
categorically admitted that Bachchu Singh might have had a
learning driving licence; therefore, he has been granted a regular
LMV licence. He denied the suggestion in cross-examination that
the licence was issued on 23.08.2008. Therefore, the statement of
this witness appears highly suspicious. However, it can be inferred
from his statement that the licence was made effective on
26.05.2008 and was valid at 8:30 AM on that date when the
accident occurred. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal has rightly
held in paragraphs 13, 14, and 16 that respondent No.1 was holding
a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the record, it is found that the burden to prove Issue No.
3 was on the respondent/insurance company, which was framed by
the learned Tribunal as under:
(3)क अनवदक क पस वध
पभशल डइववग लइसस नह हन स
बम पललस क! शर# क उललघन ह'आ
ह?
7. Since the burden to prove this issue was entirely on
respondent No. 3, it was incumbent on the appellant/Insurance
Company to prove it satisfactorily. Though Dilip (DW/1), who is
posted at the RTO Office, Morena, was examined before the
Tribunal, he made contradictory statements regarding the date of
issuance of the licence. In his chief examination, he stated that the
licence was issued on 23.08.2008, but he denied this fact during
cross-examination. Although the copy of the licence was issued on
23.08.2008 which is also reflected from the licence (Ex.D/2) that it
was effective from 26.05.2008 to 25.05.2013. The witness, in his
chief examination, stated that at the time of the accident i.e., 8:30
AM on 26.05.2008 the licence was not effective, but he has not
clarified that on what basis he is stating such fact. There is no rule
or any condition of the licence has been shown that this licence was
to be effective on a particular time on 26.5.2008. In these
conditions, the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the
respondent is found acceptable that accident took place in the mid
night and therefore, date of 26.5.2008 started from 12:00 AM in the
intervening night of 25-26.5.2008, therefore, at the time of accident,
the licence was valid and effective.
8. Dilip (DW/1) also admitted in his statement that respondent
No. 1, Bachchu Singh, might have had a learning licence with him;
therefore, he was granted a regular LMV licence. This also clarifies
that the regular licence was granted effective from 26.05.2008.
Suppose licence has been issued from backdate but before date of
issuance non-applicant Bachchu Singh had learning licence and
therefore, it cannot be said that there is absence of driving licence
with driver of offending vehicle. In these circumstances, learned
Tribunal has rightly not found proved issue No.3 in favour of
appellant/insurance company. In para-18 of the impugned award, it
is erroneously stated that licence (Ex.D/2) was issued on 26.5.2008
whereas it ought to be mentioned that it was effective from
26.5.2008 but such typing mistake does not render any assistance to
the appellant; therefore, the argument by the appellant in this regard
is not found acceptable. The appellant's prayer based solely on the
ground of absence of a driving licence with the driver of the
offending vehicle, is found to be merit less.
9. Consequently, this Misc. Appeal being bereft of merits is
hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Ahmad
