THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER v. ANWAR HUSSEIN

the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal,

3. The relevant facts of the case are that on 07.11 2008 at about 9.00 a.m.. the respondent / claimant was driving from Chitradurga to Hospet in Eicher lorry bearing No KA 35/9511, when at that time. the 1st respondent being the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.MP-06/E-3407 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Eicher lorry. As a result, the claimant sustained njuries He as shifted to Distr et Hospital at Chitradurgi treatmnt and thereaftr, further tieatmei 1 Gangavathi. Contending that he had suffered permanent disability on account of accidental injuries, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation on various heads.

4. The said claim petition was contested by the 4th respondent/insurance company by contending that accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Eicher lorry bearing registration No.KA35/951 1 i.e., the claimant himself, It was also contended that the driver of the truck bearing registration No.MP-06/E-3407 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the insurance company contended that it was not liable to satisfy the award. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration: (I) Whether petitioner proves 07.112008 at about 900 am.. on NH-i 3 near Hire Mallanahole cross, he has sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident i.e., on account of rash and negligent driving of the bearing NoMP06/E-3407 respondent No1? (i Whether the petitioner oroves that he is -4- entitled for the compensation? From whom, to what extent2 (iii) What order?

5. In support of his case, the claimant let-in his evidence as PW-1 and that of two other witnesses as PWs-2 & 3 and produced 91 documents which were marked as ExsP-l to 91. The insurance company did not let-in any evidence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,30,982/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. The petition against Respondent No.3 was dismissed. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 were jointly liable to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurance company has preferred this appeal. 6 1 have heard the learned counsel appearing for the insurer and learned counsel appearing for the claimant, who is the caveator/respondent No. 1.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance ompany has made a two fold submission, In the first place. ‘ e tded a t1 laim ‘it ‘x a1s pnuicibl r II— -- causing the accident, since there was head-on collision between both the vehicles and therefore, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor has to be applied. Having regard to the evidence produced, the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the same in its proper perspective and apportioned the negligence between the driver of the truck. If the same had been done, then the claimant, who is the driver of the Eicher lorry, would not be entitled to any compensation to the extent of his negligence. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal was not right in fastening the entire negligence on the driver of the truck bearing registration No. MP-06/ E-3407.

8. He secondly contended that the driver of offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, The accident has occurred on 07.1 1 2008. The licence was not issued specifically to drive a Heavy Goods Vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be saddled with any liability. Hence, he submitted that this is a fit case which calls for interference of this court in this appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for responder. t/ claimant supporting the judgment and s.ward -6- passed the Tribunal contended appellant/insurance company has not let-in any independent evidence with regard to negligence on the part of the respondent/claimant. Secondly, he contended that even in the cross-examination of the claimant, no material has been elicited which would support the case of the insurance company. He, therefore, submitted that at this point of time, the insurance company cannot raise any issue regarding the negligence on the part of the claimant/Respondent No.1.

10. He also stated that as per Ex.P-6, the driver of the truck bearing registration No.MP-06/E-3407, on whom the liability has been fastened, possessed a valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal on being satisfied with the said evidence rightly fastened the liability on the insurance company. He therefore, submitted that that there is no merit in this appeal and the same has to be dismissed.

11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, the following points would arise for my consideration: (i) Whether respondent/claimant was negligent causing accident occurred on OT11.2008? (ii) Whether driver bearing registration No.MP-06/E-3407 possessed a valid and effective driving licence?

12. POINT NO.1: From the material on record, it is established that on 07.11.2008 at about 9.00 a.m. on NH- 13, claimant was driving Eicher lorry bearing registration No.KA-35/951 1 from Chitradurga to Hospet Road, there was collision between the said vehicle and the lorry bearing registration No.MP-06/E-3407. As a result of accident, respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries, for which he took treatment and follow-up treatment and thereafter, filed a claim petition seeking compensation on various heads,

13. In support of his case, the claimant has produced Ex,P-1: copy of the FIR, Ex,P-2: copy of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the truck bearing registration No,MP 06/E-407, Ex.P-4: copy of the IMV Report, Ex,P-5: copy of the wound certificate. On the basis of the evidence and also A; -8- the oral evidence let-in by the claimant and other witnesses, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver the truck bearing registration No.MP-06/E-3407 was negligent in causing the accident, In fact, the insurance company has not let-in any evidence with regard to the negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles, On the other hand, both the vehicles have been insured by the appellant/insurance company. However, the significance of the contention of the counsel for the appellant is in the context of whether the respondent/claimant would be entitled to any compensation if he was also negligent in causing the accident,

14. In that regard, the Tribunal has stated that the insurance company did not let-in any independent evidence. It, nevertheless, cross-examined the claimant, In the cross examination, no material has been elicited which is of any assistance to further the case of the insurance company. On the other hand, the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, has held that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck and that there was no -9- material produced to show that there was any rash and negligent driving on the part of the claimant. In the absence there being any independent evidence let-in by the insurance company and no material contrary to claimant’s case being elicited in the cross-examination of the claimant, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 holding that the driver of the truck was solely responsible in causing the accident, which would not call for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered against the appellant / insurance company and it is held that the driver of lorry bearing No.MP-06/E-3407 was solely negligent in causing the accident,

15. POINT No.2: As far as the driver of the offending vehicle possessing the valid and driving licence is concerned, is noted that the accident has occurred on 07. 11.2008. ExP-6 is the certified copy of the driving licence produced by the respondent/claimant. A perusal of the same would show that the licence was issued in respect of two categories of vehicle, licence to drive the transport vehicle was valid and effective from i3052008 to 120520i I and licence to drive 10 vehicle other than transport vehicle was

23.05.2000 to 23.05.2020.

16. In the instant case, the vehicle in question is a transport vehicle. i.e., Heavy Goods Vehicle. Having regard to the licence issued for the transport vehicle from 13.05.2008 to 12.05.2011, it is held that there was a valid and effective driving licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability on Respondent No.4. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the appellant’s counsel that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Thus, Point No.2 is also answered against the insurance company. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed, The statutory deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd,, 3UDGE RKK/