Gurdev Singh & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Ors.

Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, are in appeal before this Court against the award dated 9.4.2008, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby while holding the appellants as well as respondent No. 1- Insurance Company liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. Recovery rights were given to the Insurance Company from the appellants. Briefly, the facts are that on 19.6.2005 at Sahnewal Chowk, due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PB-12-C-3875, Kamaljit Singh succumbed to his injuries. The petition was filed by the claimants, being his legal representatives for claiming compensation. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Kamaljit Singh ? (OPA)

2. Whether Kamaljit Singh died in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of truck No. PB-12-C-3875 by Gurdev Singh respondent ? (OPA)

3. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties ? (OPR-3) FAO No. 2850 of 2008 [2]

4. Whether Gurdev Singh respondent No. 1 had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accidentand also have no valid documents at that time ? If so, its effect (OPR-3).

5. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents ? If so how and from which of the respondents? (OPA)

6. Relief.” The learned Tribunal only held mother and widow of the deceased, to be the legal heirs, entitled to receive compensation on account of the death of Kamaljit Singh. Finding was recorded that Kamaljit Singh died on account of the rash and negligent driving of truck No. PB-12-C-3875 by appellant No.1. The deceased in the present case was employed as Lineman with Punjab State Electricity Board, who was to retire in 2008. Considering his income and the dependency, the learned Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs. 4,35,000/-. Regarding the validity of the driving licence held by appellant No. 1, being the driver of the vehicle, the learned Tribunal merely referred to the evidence and the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties, but did not record any definite finding as regards the validity of the driving licence. However, a direction was issued that the Insurance Company will make the payment of compensation awarded to the claimants at the first instance, however, it will have the right to recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle. It is this award, which has been impugned in the present appeal by the driver and owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the direction of the learned Tribunal in the impugned award giving right to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation, if paid to the claimants, from the appellants is patently erroneous. Once there is no definite finding recorded on the issue, there was no question of issuing any such direction. In fact, the evidence produced on record by the appellants clearly established that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving licence, which was even proved by the official of the Licensing Authority. Though the evidence led by the appellants was discussed, but still the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the same. He submitted that merely because register containing data beyond a particular number regarding renewal of the licences was not available, will not show that the driving licence held by appellant No. 1 was not valid, once the signatures of the Assistant Transport Officer, who had signed the renewed driving licence were identified by the official FAO No. 2850 of 2008 [3] of his office. Referring to the aforesaid material, the submission was that the right given by the learned Tribunal to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the appellants be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that there is no error in the direction issued by the learned Tribunal, giving right to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the appellants, as the driving licence produced on record by the appellants was found to be fabricated one. He submitted that the renewed driving licence of appellant No. 1 mentioned Sr. No. 10998 dated 2.1.2004, whereas the renewal register closed at Sr. No. 6237, which clearly established that even the number mentioned on the renewed driving licence was not in existence. The prayer was for dismissal of the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of the discussion on issue No. 4 of the learned Tribunal shows that while referring to the evidence led by the parties on the issue and also noticing the respective arguments, the learned Tribunal proceeded to discuss the legal position assuming that the driving licence to be invalid without recording a definite finding thereon. Finally, the Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award while giving right of recovery against the appellants. Appellant No. 1 produced driving licence No. 10998 REN dated 2.1.2004 for LMV/MGV/HGV/HTV, which was valid upto 27.12.2007. To prove the genuineness of the driving licence, RW1- Gopal Kishore, Junior Assistant from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur was summoned. In his examination- in-chief, he stated as under: “I have brought the summoned record. Driving licence of Gurdev Singh bearing No. 10998 REN dated 2.1.2004 for LMV/MGV/HGV/HTV was valid upto 27.12.2007. I have also brought the report regarding the record of the renewal of the driving licence bearing No. DL/RDL 6433/88-89 in the name of Gurdev Singh son of Joginder Singh. I identify the signatures of Sh. Manjit Singh Asstt. Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur. The copy of the said report is Ex. RW1/A. It is correct as per our record. As per the record, the driving licence of Gurdev Singh is genuine one. The copy of the entry in the relevant register is Ex. RW1/B.” Nothing could be extracted from him in his cross-examination as he had made the statement on the basis of record. FAO No. 2850 of 2008 [4] A perusal of the statement of RW1-Gopal Kishore shows that he had produced the record from the office pertaining to the driving licence held by appellant No. 1 bearing No. 10998 REN dated 2.1.2004 for LMV/MGV/HGV/HTV, which was valid upto 27.12.2007. The accident in the present case occurred on 19.6.2005. Another important aspect in his statement was that he identified the signatures of Manjit Singh, Assistant Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur, who had signed the renewed driving licence issued in favour of appellant No.1. Once that is so, in my opinion, on the basis of the material on record produced by the appellants, it could not be held that the driving licence of appellant No. 1 was not valid. Merely on account of the fact that in the register for renewal of driving licences, which may be available with the Authority at a given time, was having serial No. upto 6237, whereas the number of driving licence held by appellant No. 1 was 10998, which may be in the subsequent register after Sr. No. 6237, it could not be opined that the licence was fake. For the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion, the findings recorded on issue No. 4 are perverse and accordingly set side. It is held that the driving licence held by appellant No. 1 was valid on the date of accident. The direction given by the learned Tribunal giving right to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the appellants, in case the same is paid by it to the claimants, is set aside. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

8.3.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge