IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.343 of 2004 The Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., having its Regional Office at Pirmohani, Rajendra Path, P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna. …Appellant Versus 1.Dilip Kumar Singh, son of Ramayan Singh, a resident of village Rathor Tola(Mahiya), P.S. Chapra, Muffasil, District Saran. 2.Shivaji Rai 3.Shankar Rai Both sons of late Bishjwanath Rai, resident of Village Furshatpur, P.S. and P.O. Garkha, District Saran. ………Respondents. ----------- 15/ 21.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against that part of the judgment and award dated 30.08.2003, by which learned Additional District Judge0cum-Motor Vehicle Claims Tribanal, Saran, Chapra, allowed M.V. Case No. 49 of 2001(81/02) filed by the claimant-respondents first set and directed the appellant-Insurance Company ( opposite party no.2 in the court below ) to pay compensation of Rs.1,27,000/- interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till 3103.2002 and, thereafter, at the rate of 5% per annum till the payment of the claim. 3. It may be stated that on 06.05.2001 two persons, namely Raju Rai and Bishwanath Rai were traveling on the Commander Jeep in question admittedly owned by defendant no.1 and insured by the appellant, met with an accident with a Maruti car, due to which said two persons died. In the said circumstances, the heirs of Raju Rai filed M.V. Claim Case No. 36 of 2001 (9/03), whereas, the heirs of Bishwanath Rai filed M.V. Claim Case No. 49 of 2001(81/02) which were heard together and allowed by the learned 9th Additional District 2 Judge, Saran at Chapara by a common judgment dated 30.08.2003, Against that part of the said judgment dated 30.08.2003, by which M.V. Claim Case No. 36 of 2001 was allowed, the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. filed M.A. No. 158 of 2004, which was dismissed by this Court by a well considered and detailed order dated 31.05.2007. However, against the other part of the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2003, by which Motor Vehciel Claim Case No. 49 of 2001 was allowed, the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company has filed the instant M.A. No. 343 of 2004, which is being considered now. 4. The main contention of the appellant is with respect to appellant’s liability to pay the amount of compensation as according to it, there was head on collision between a Maruti Car and Commander Jeep due to negligence and rash driving of the Maturi Car resulting in the death of the persons traveling in the Commander Jeep, which was owned by respondent no.1 and insured by the appellant and in the said circumstances, there was a composite liability of insurers of both the vehicles half and half as has been held by this Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Malti Devi & Ors., reported in 1977(2) PLJR 391 as well as in case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs Bidvadhar Dutta & Ors, reported in 2006(2) PLJR (SC) 287. 5. The other question raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the Commander Jeep, in which the deceased was traveling, was driven by a driver, whose licence was not valid and proper and hence the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation. In this regard, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble 3 Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Prithwi Raj, reported in 1(228) C.P.J. 33 (SC). 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and considering the materials on record including the impugned judgment of the learned court below, it is quite apparent that the appellant-Insurance Company has admitted that the driver of the vehicle in question had a driving licence and it only assumed that the said licence was not valid and operative. However, the appellant has neither given any reason for such assumption nor it produced any material to show that the licence of the driver was not valid and operative. Furthermore, if such a licence was not produced by any of the respondents, it was for the appellant to file a petition before the learned court below for a direction to the persons concerned to produce the said driving licence, but no such step is shown to have been taken by the appellant nor they even made any effort to obtain a copy of the driving licence from the authorities concerned. Mere baseless assumption or apprehension of a party cannot be the basis of any judicial decision. In the said circumstances, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. So far other points raised by the appellant in the instant miscellaneous appeal including the point mentioned in paragraph 4 above are concerned, they are exactly the same, which had been raised by the appellant in M.A. No.158 of 2004, which have been considered in detail in order dated 31.05.2007 passed in the said miscellaneous appeal and have been rejected by a reasoned order considering the 4 pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced by them and the settled principles of law. Hence, they need not be reiterated in the instant order. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Additional District Judge, Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal, Saran at Chapra and, accordingly, the instant miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant prays that the statutory amount deposited by him at the time of filing of the miscellaneous appeal under the provision of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act be returned to the appellant through its counsel. Let it be so done. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )