IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 296 of 2005 1- Heera Singh Jeena S/o Lal Singh 2- Smt. Basanti Devi W/o Heera Singh, Both R/o Village Amiya, Tehsil & District Nainital … Appellants Versus Union of India through Secretary of Defence, Delhi, Owner of Military Truck 1 Ton (NSN. B.A. 89C-54547 K. Meerut Sub Area Provost Unit C.M.P. Ranibagh District Nain … Respondent Sri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate for the appellants Sri Arvind Vashist, Addl. Solicitor General of India, for respondent Dated: March 24, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the appellants, against the judgment and award dated 19.10.2002, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 25 of 2002, Heera Singh & others versus Union of India, by which the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the appellants, under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, for Rs. 20 lacs claimed as compensation with interest pendent elite and future. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 20.1.2002 at about 8.30 p.m., driver of Military Truck No. 89C-54547 K., C.M.P. Ranibagh dashed with motorcycle of deceased-Than Singh in front of Filter House situated at Sheesh Mahal at Haldwani-Nainital road, on account of which deceased-Than Singh sustained grievous injuries on his person and died on the spot itself. The claimants have pleaded that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending truck. They have also pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased-Than Singh was doing his M.Sc. as well as was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from business. Therefore, the claimants have claimed for compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs) due to death of his son-Than Singh. Opposite party has filed its written statement alleging therein that deceased himself was plying his motorcycle No. UP 02C-5445 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the truck due to his own fault, in which he sustained serious injuries. The truck and its driver had no fault at the time of accident. In fact, when the military truck was coming there was traffic jam at Haldwani- Ranibagh road and military truck was standing to the left side of the road. The military truck was not moving when the motorcyclist dashed with the truck from the back side, due to which he sustained serious injuries. Hence, the opposite party was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties framed relevant issues and accordingly dismissed the claim petitions of the appellants, under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, for Rs. 20 lacs claimed as compensation with interest pendent elite and future. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court. Heard Sri Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Arvind Vashisht, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, for respondent and perused the record. The Tribunal has dismissed the petitions on the ground that the driver of offending motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased himself, had no driving licence at the time of accident. The Tribunal has recorded finding that the claimants although have alleged that the deceased had licence but they have not filed the same before the Tribunal and the motorcycle was being driven by a person having no driving licence whatsoever. From the perusal of the record it is quite clear that PW-1 Heera Singh, father of the deceased in his cross- examination has stated that he has no knowledge whether the motorcycle was registered in the name of the deceased or not. Although this witness has said that the deceased had driving licence but no documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal in this regard. Therefore, the claimants have not discharged his burden to prove the fact that the deceased had a driving licence. Had the deceased own driving licence, the claimants would have certainly filed the same before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that the deceased was driving the motorcycle without having any driving licence. It was incumbent upon the claimants to have proved this fact and the burden would not shift on the insurance company. By not filing the driving licence adverse influence is to be drawn against the insured, who in this case was the deceased. Therefore, the motorcycle which was being driven in the public place is in violation of Section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for necessity of the driving licence. The learned Tribunal has also recorded finding that at the place of accident there was a traffic jam and the military truck was standing there and when the traffic started to move, suddenly the motorcyclist dashed from the rear side and caused the accident. F.I.R. of the accident was lodged that the opposite party/respondent the police investigated the matter and found that the deceased himself had dashed the military truck and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the said truck, therefore, final report was filed in the case against the driver of the offending truck. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petitions. I do not find any ground to interfere in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. (B. C. Kandpal, J.) SP