IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 464 of 2005 National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Canal Road, Tikonia, Haldwani, District Nainital …..Appellant. Versus 1- Sri Thakur Singh Gosain S/o Sri Chander Singh, 2- Master Hardik Gosai S/o Thakur Singh minor through father Respondent No. 1, Both R/o Kirti Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal ….Respondents. Mr. Prabhat Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J. P. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. Dated: 28-02-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, has been preferred by the National Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 20-7-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in M.A.C. Case No. 24 of 2004, Thakur Singh and another Vs. Vikram Singh and another, whereby the claim petition was allowed for compensation of Rs. 9,18,000-00 along with an interest @ 5% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition against the National Insurance Company. 2- Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that the deceased Smt. Shaila Gosain was an Assistant Teacher. She has died in an accident on 4.3.2004 when she was returning to Kirti Nagar from her school in vehicle No. U.P. 08-6070. According to the petition the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the jeep. The claimants filed claim petition for the death of Smt. Shaila. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident and she was getting a salary of Rs. 8000/- per month. 3- O.P. No. 1, the owner of the jeep file written statement alleging therein that the jeep was insured with National Insurance Company and its driver had valid driving license. 4- The National Insurance also filed its written statement before the Tribunal and alleged that the jeep in question had no valid registration, fitness and its driver was not having valid driving license. 5- The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of parties, framed following issues:- 1- Whether the accident took place on 4.3.2004 at about 4 P.M. near Silnigaon Patwari Circle Lalathpato, District Tehri Garhwal due to rash and negligence driving of jeep No. U.P.08/ 6070 by its driver resulting death fo Smt. Shaila Gusain? 2- Whether the deceased was not a bonafide passenger in the ill-facted vehicle? If so, its effect ? 3- Whether the driver of ill-facted vehicle did not possess a valid driving license and the registration, fitness and permit of the vehicle were not valid on the date of accident? If so, its effect?. 4- To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled and from which of the opposite parties? 6- The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the jeep, the offending jeep was having valid and effective registration, fitness and permit and if was insured with O.P. No. 2, National Insurance Company and the driver was having valid and effective driving license. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,18,000-00 as compensation to the claimants against the National Insurance Company. 7- Feeling aggrieved, the National Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the ground that the driving license of driver of jeep No. U.P. 08/6070, D.L. V-17986 dated 16-8-82 was not valid and effective on the date of accident and the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. 8- Heard Sri Prabhat Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and perused the record. 9- The only controversy involved in this case is as to whether the driver of the ill-facted jeep was possessing a valid driving license at the time of accident or not?. 10- Perusal of record reveals that the Insurance Company has raised the issue of the driving license in its written statement and the Tribunal has framed issue No. 3 on the point. The burden to prove this fact lies on the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company has not discharged its burden by adducing any type of evidence before the Tribunal. On the other hand the Tribunal has recorded categorical finding on issue No. 3 that the documents pertaining to the ill-facted vehicle have been produced and all the documents were valid and effective. The vehicle was insured with O.P. No. 2 ( National Insurance Company/appellant). The Tribunal also held that the driver of the jeep was having valid and effective driving license and the Insurance Company has not brought any fact to the notice of the Tribunal which may cast any doubt on these documents. 11- At appellate stage the learned counsel for the appellant tried to show that the driving license was fake by filing verification report submitted by District Transport Officer, Patna, but this report also does not help the appellant as the Transport Officer has shown his inability to give any description of the driving license of the driver of the ill-fated jeep. 12- In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the appellant/Insurance Company has not been able to discharge its burden on the point that the driving license in question was not valid and effective at the time of the accident of the jeep and I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 20-7-2005 passed by M.A.C.T./ District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, is hereby confirmed. 14- Let the amount of compensation deposited before this Court, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB