Sri Devashish Chatterjee v. Dhan Masih Kujur @ Dhanmasi Kujur @ Dhanmasi

: Mr. Rajesh Kr. Jha, Advocate For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Dubey, Advocate 06/ 29.01.2025 Heard the parties. ----------

2. This appeal is preferred against the part of Award dated 06.03.2017 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.48 of 2008 by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, whereby award is made for sum of Rs.7,30,367/- as compensation and directing the Insurer/O.P. No.3 to pay the same after deducting Rs.25,000/- paid earlier along with interest @ 9 % per annum i.e. from 10.09.2008 within 30 days from the date of order and granted liberty to the Insurer/O.P. No.3 to recover the said amount from the appellant/owner of the vehicle on the ground that the driver was plying the insured vehicle without possessing valid and effective driving license. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although he has appeared before the learned tribunal, however the driving license was not brought on record inadvertently and in view of the fact that the finding of the learned trial court is there. He submits that in the appeal the driving license is annexed and by way of referring the same and submits that driving license was valid. On these grounds he submits that the said award may kindly be modified. 1

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 submits that learned trial court framed a specific issue with regard to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and given a finding against the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that he has filed an objection petition in this appeal, wherein at para-5 it is stated that the owner of the vehicle and driver of the vehicle has not produced any documents to the satisfaction of the investigator and the investigator has given his report to Insurance Company and he has stated that driving license was not produced. Learned counsel further submits that the Insurance Company has also issue notice to the driver and owner of the vehicle to produce the driving license and in spite of that they had not produced the same. Learned counsel further submits that the photocopy of the license brought on record and submits that the vehicle was commercial one and it was the bus which was plying for commercial utility. Learned counsel further submits that the said license is said to be issued on 18.05.1999 and renewed on 11.07.2016. Learned counsel further submits that transport license are being renewed every three years. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 refers to Section 14 and 15 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On this ground he submits that the right of recovery has been rightly given to the Insurance Company. Learned counsel further submits that the award has already been satisfied by the Insurance Company in favour of the claimants and the awarded amount has already been paid. 5. Learned tribunal has framed issue No.4 as to whether O.P. No.1 owner of the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.JH-01C-1545 violated any terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. While deciding the said issue learned tribunal has found that O.P. No.1 namely, Devashish Chaterjee owner of the offending vehicle Bus appeared along with Vakalatnama of his counsel but he did not file vehicular documents or written statement under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Learned Tribunal has found that the said burden is upon the owner and driver of the vehicle to be proved whether the driving license are there. It was also found that fitness certificate was not produced. In view of that learned tribunal has come to a finding that he has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, 2 that issue was decided in favour of Insurer. In view of that learned tribunal has given right of recovery to the Insurance Company from the owner. This Court finds that there is no illegality in the judgment of the learned tribunal. 6. Photocopy of the license has been annexed showing that a driver was having the license. However, this document was not produced before the learned tribunal. There is procedure of bringing on record any document at the appellate stage in light of Section 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C and in absence of that straight way photocopy has been annexed. Further one of the aspect to be considered to bring any document at appellate stage i.e. due diligence i.e. also lacking in the case in hand. Section-14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 be reads as under;

14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles-(1) A learner’s licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall- (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years; [Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and”;] (b) in the case of any other licence,- (i) if the person obtaining the licence either, originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of [fifty] years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,- (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of [fifty] years, whichever is earlier; [(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal.] 3 Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry. 7. In view of above and in light of Section 14 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in case of licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years, meaning thereby it requires to be renewed every years. 8. In light of Section 15 of the said Act on any application the extension of further thirty days can be granted. 9. From the photocopy of documents, it is not clear that after three years it has been further renewed or not. 10. In light of above discussion the Court finds that there is no merit in the appeal, hence this appeal is dismissed. Rohit/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 4