HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO. 85 OF 2002 New India Assurance Company Ltd; through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Haldwani, Nainital .............. Appellant versus 1. Mazhar Hasan alias Mujahid Hussain s/o Neer Mohammad r/o village Jamalpur, P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar 2. Babar Khan alias Balveer Khan s/o Sharif Khan r/o Arya Nagar, Jawalapur, District Haridwar 3. Islam s/o Sri Yaseen r/o Landhora, Pargana Manglor Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar 4. Satpal s/o Sri Ralha r/o Bahadrabad, Pargana Jwalapur, District Haridwar 5. The Oriental Insurance Co. Jwalapur, Haridwar ........... Respondents Sri D.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent no. 1 Sri Sanjeev Singh and S. Ahamad, Advocate for respondent no.2 Sri K.K. Sah counsel for respondents no. 5. Dated: 3.1.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri D.K. Sharma counsel for the appellant, Sri Lok Pal Singh, counsel for the respondent no. 1 Sri Sanjeev Singh and S. Ahamad counsel for respondent no. 2 and Sri K.K. Sah counsel for respondent no. 5. Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 19.1.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Haridwar awarding a sum of Rs.58,000/- to the claimant as compensation. Briefly stated the claimant was employed as truck Driver on Tata Truck No. U.P. 10A-5384. On 1.1.97 at about 7.15 PM he was going to Roorkee from Jwalapur. When he reached near Badarabd truck No. URM 8809 who was being driven by respondent Ishlam rashly and negligently collided with the truck of the claimant due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was rushed to the hospital and report of the accident was lodged in P.S. Jwalapur. At the time of accident the claimant was getting Rs.3,000/- as salary and he was 30 years old. Rs.80,000/- were incurred in his treatment. The claimant has become permanently disabled and is unable to perform his work of driving vehicle. Opposite party Oriental Insurance Company has filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. It has been stated that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Truck No. URM 8809. Opposite party the New India Assurance Company appellant has stated in the written statement that the claim petition has been filed with incorrect facts. The driver of the truck had no valid driving licence and the vehicle had no fitness certificate at the time of accident. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. U.P. 10A-5384. Opposite party Ishlam son of Sri Yaseen has filed his written statement and stated that he had valid driving licence and the accident had taken place due to own negligence by the claimant. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: 1. Whether on 1.1.1997 at 7.15 PM truck No. URM 8809 was being driven rashly and negligently by driver Ishalam and hit truck No. UP 10A-5384 and claimant Mazahar Hasan sustained grievous injuries in the accident? 2. Whether the accident took place due to own negligent driving by the claimant? 3. Whether the claimant had valid driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? 4. Whether opposite party no. 2 had no valid driving licence at the time of accident? 5. What amount of compensation is the claimant entitled and from which of the opposite party? The claimant examined himself as P.W.1, Akaram as P.W.2 and Intazar Ahamad as P.W.3. He has also filed Medical report, Disability certificate, cash memos, copy of driving licence, Registration certificate of the truck and copy of F.I.R. Opposite party no. 3 has filed licence verification report and copy of F.I.R. After considering the evidence on record the Claims Tribunal has held that both the truck drivers had valid driving licences at the time of accident. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. URM 8809. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.58,000/- as compensation to the claimants. As the truck No. URM 8809 was validly insured with the New India Assurance Company, therefore, the owner of the truck Sri Babar Khan was held liable to pay compensation and the insurance company was held liable to held indemnify the owner. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been preferred by the New India Assurance Company. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that the accident has taken place due to contributory negligence of both the drivers of truck No. URM 8809 and U.P. 10A -5384, therefore, insurance companies of both the trucks are liable to pay the award. The claimant examined three witnesses in support of his case. P.W.2 Akaram is a driver by profession. At the time of accident he was taking meal at the Dhaba. His presence at the place of accident is not suspicious. He has categorically stated that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. URM 8809. Claimant Ajahar has also examined himself as P.W. 1 on oath to prove his case. He stated in his examination in chief that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by truck No. URM 8809. He states as under: tc eSa cgknjkckn ?kwe dj fdlku <kcs ls dqN igys igqpk rks lkeus ls V~d ua0 ;q0 vkj0,e0 ŠŠŒˆ bZVks ls Hkjk gqvk vk jgk Fkk bldk Mkbcj cgqr vkmV cSysUl vkSj rsth ls py jgk Fkk A eSus viuh xkMh cgqr e/;e dj nh A eS lMd ij viuh ckbZ lkbV ij [kMh dj nh As against this no evidence has been adduced by the opposite parties. The Claims Tribunal has held that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. URM 8809. Thus I find no illegality or infirmity in the findings arrived at by the trial Court. The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Rajesh Tandon J. Dated: 3.1.2008 *Dhyani