National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shri Ramesh Kumar & Ors
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
Summary
A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.
Precedent status
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.
Original judgment text
1. Shri Ramesh Kumar son of Diwan Chand, Resident of Village Gheli, P. O. Nana, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.
2. M/s Sharma Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., through its Proprietor and Manager Sh. Jagan Nath Sharma, resident of Village Kuthandal, P.O. Kher, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (owner of Bus No. HP-22-5985).
3. Shri Suresh Kumar alias Rakesh Kumar, sonof late Sh. Thuru Ram, resident of Village Jharar, P.O. Har, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. (Driver of Bus No. HP-22-5985) _________________________________________________________ (cid:133) Respondents.
2. FAO No. 290 of 2009. National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Shimla. Versus (cid:133).Appellant.
1. Sapna Devi daughter of Sh. Jagdish Chand, resident of Village Jharar, P.O. Har, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.
2. M/s Sharma Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., through its Proprietor and Manager Sh. Jagan Nath Sharma, resident of Village Kuthandal, P.O. Kher, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (owner of Bus No. HP-22-5985).
3. Shri Suresh Kumar alias Rakesh Kumar, sonof late Sh. Thuru Ram, resident of Village Jharar, P.O. Har, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. (Driver of Bus No. HP-22-5985) 2 _________________________________________________________ (cid:133) Respondents.
3. FAO No. 291 of 2009. National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Shimla. Versus (cid:133).Appellant.
1. Rita Devi wife of Shri Ramesh Kumar, Resident of Village Jharar, P.O. Har, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P
2. M/s Sharma Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., through its Proprietor and Manager Sh. Jagan Nath Sharma, resident of Village Kuthandal, P.O. Kher, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (owner of Bus No. HP-22-5985).
3. Shri Suresh Kumar alias Rakesh Kumar, sonof late Sh. Thuru Ram, resident of Village Jharar, P.O. Har, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. (Driver of Bus No. HP-22-5985) _________________________________________________________ (cid:133) Respondents.
4. FAO No. 292 of 2009. National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Shimla. Versus (cid:133).Appellant.
1. Moti Ram son of late Sh. Kashmiru Ram, Resident of Village Jharar, P.O. Har, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P
2. M/s Sharma Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., through its Proprietor and Manager Sh. Jagan Nath Sharma, resident of Village Kuthandal, P.O. Kher, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (owner of Bus No. HP-22-5985).
3. Shri Suresh Kumar alias Rakesh Kumar, sonof late Sh. Thuru Ram, resident of Village Jharar, P.O. Har, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. (Driver of Bus No. HP-22-5985) (cid:133) Respondents.
5. FAO No. 305 of 2009. National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Shimla. (cid:133).Appellant. 3 Versus
1. Ran Singh son of Sh. Lasho Ram, Resident of Village Jharar, P.O. Har, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P
2. M/s Sharma Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., through its Proprietor and Manager Sh. Jagan Nath Sharma, resident of Village Kuthandal, P.O. Kher, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (owner of Bus No. HP-22-5985).
3. Shri Suresh Kumar alias Rakesh Kumar, sonof late Sh. Thuru Ram, resident of Village Jharar, P.O. Har, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. (Driver of Bus No. HP-22-5985) (cid:133) Respondents. Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Coram The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant(s) : For respondent(s) No.1: For respondent(s) No.2: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate. Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. Dev Darshan, J. (oral) All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as same question of law and fact are involved. The claim petitions have been allowed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting compensation as : - Sr. FAO Number Title No.
1. 306 of 2009
2. 290 of 2009
3. 291 of 2009
4. 292 of 2009 National Insurance Co. versus Ramesh Kumar and others. National Insurance Co. versus Sapna Devi and others. National Insurance Co. versus Rita Devi and others. National Insurance Co. versus Moti Ram and others. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Amount awarded Rs.1,78,127/- Rs.19,050/- Rs.6,47,000/- Rs.3,25,160/- 4
5. 305 of 2009 National Insurance Co. versus Ran Singh and others. Rs.2,04,138/-
2. The appellant-insurance company pleads that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was in grave error in not allowing it to lead evidence to establish the fact that the driver of the bus, Shri Suresh Kumar-respondent No.3 (driver) in all appeals did not possess a valid driving licence. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) as also claimant(s) have taken me through the records of the case.
3. I do find from the endorsement made in some of the documents exhibited by the respondents that it has been certified by DTO, Amritsar that the original driving licence was in fact issued by this Office at Amritsar. However, what is in dispute is the fact as to whether this licence was thereafter renewed or not. It is this fact that the insurance company seeks to prove to avoid its liability and in that eventuality to urge that the liability is of the owner. Learned counsel Shri Suneet Goel has submitted that the verification on the documents of the investigation/investigator made by the DTO, Amritsar contains a certification that no renewal has been granted.
4. In these circumstances, without pronouncing on evidence on record as it is, these appeals are remanded to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala with this direction that it will grant one opportunity to the appellant herein i.e. Insurance Company to produce evidence of DTO/Licencing Authority, Amritsar to establish the factum as to whether the renewal of the licence of respondent Suresh Kumar was processed/issued from that office or that renewal was granted in fact either at Amritsar or from some other licenceing authority entitled under law to do so. No other 5 evidence will be allowed to be led or admitted by the learned Tribunal. The respondents herein shall also be given an opportunity to lead/rebut the evidence on this point only. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal will also ensure that all these cases are disposed of not later than 31st August, 2012. In case the learned Tribunal comes to the conclusion that no valid renewal was made on the licence in that event no order of recovery of the amount shall be made from the claimants. In such event, the recovery shall be ordered to be made from the owner of the vehicle. This point already stands adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Kusum Lata & Ors vs. Satbir and Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1234. In these circumstances, a direction is also issued to the Registry that the amount lying deposited in this Court shall not be refunded to the Insurance Company. It will be open to the insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner if so ordered. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala on 22nd May, 2012. Liberty reserved to the parties to approach this Court again should there be a finding/judgment adverse to their interest.
5. The interest accrued and accruing to the share of the claimants in each of the appeal shall be regularly remitted to their bank accounts, particulars whereof supplied claimants/applicants. The parties will be at liberty to approach this Court after the decision of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 24th April, 2012. (jai) ( Dev Darshan Sud), Judge