Uttarakhand High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors on 26 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 16 of 2009
From the judgment and award dated 18.10.2008 passed by
Ms. Kumkum Rani, learned District Judge/MACT, Champawat in
MACP No. 8 of 2007.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant
-Versus-
Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors. ....Respondents
Advocates appeared in the case:
For Appellant : Mr. T.A. Khan, Sr. Adv.
Assisted by Mr. Ravi
Kandpal, Adv.
For Respondents : Mr. Ashish Joshi, Adv.
Sri S.K. Mishra, J.
Judgment
26.10.2021
1. Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Ravi Kandpal, learned Advocate
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ashish Joshi,
learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation.
2. In this case, the appellant/Insurance Company has
assailed the award passed by the learned District Judge/
MACT, Champawat awarding the sum of Rs. 2,80,000/-
to the claimants/opposite party and directing the
Insurance Company to indemnify the said damages.
3. The only ground of challenge in this appeal is that
the driver of the vehicle i.e. respondent no. 3 was not
having a valid driving license. First of all, there is no
specific plea in the written statement filed by the
Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the driver
of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence. The
plea taken by the Insurance Company is in a very
general manner. It is apparent that the burden of
proving that the driver of the offending vehicle had a
valid license on the date of incident is on the appellant.
4. The documents regarding the alleged fake driving
license was not produced before the Tribunal. It is
sought to be produced before this Court as an additional
evidence by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
referred as the Code). A careful perusal of the
application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code
reveals that the only averment made by the Insurance
Company is regarding the different dates on which
surveyor went to the different offices and obtained the
documents. There is no plea in the application itself that
in spite of due diligence, the appellant could not be in
the knowledge of the documents that was filed by him
to be in the existence. It is not the case of the appellant
that those documents filed before the Tribunal and were
not admitted without any valid reason nor there is any
plea in the application that the Appellate Court requires
that such documents to be produced to enable it to
pronounce the judgment or for any substantial cause.
5. Moreover, a careful examination of the documents
produced in this case reveals that the Regional
Transport Office, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh has informed
the Insurance Company that the driver of the offending
vehicle, namely, Chhiag Singh son of Pala Singh was
having valid driving licence. He had DLMH (heavy motor
vehicle) since 21.09.1997. He had HPMV (heavy
passenger motor vehicle) w.e.f. 16.07.2005. It is also
admitted that the accident took place on 30.12.2006.
Even, it is apparent he had a licence on that day.
Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant submits
that Licensing Authority-cum-Secretary, RTA, Hissar has
intimated that DL No. 15942/Hissar dated 21.09.1999
appears to be not issued by that office and truth of that
driving license can only be ascertained by producing
Xerox copy thereafter.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits
that they have not produced any photo copy of the
license before the Licensing Authority-cum-Secretary,
RTA, Hissar. They relied upon the report of Shri Abhinav
Jain, Advocate who reiterates the same, even, the said
Advocate has not intimated the Company to take
appropriate steps to obtain copy of the driving license
and sent it to the Licensing Authority-cum-Secretary,
RTA, Hissar.
7. In that view of the matter, if application is allowed
for acceptance of additional evidence, it will not be of
any help to the Insurance Company/Appellant. So the
prayer of acceptance of additional evidence is rejected.
As far as merit is concerned, it is apparent from the
record that there is no material evidence on record to
come to a different conclusion that the driver of the
offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license on
the date of occurrence.
8. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal,
is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merits.
9. Urgent certified copy of the judgment be provided
as per rules.
10. Lower court record be sent back.
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
PV
