IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 39 of 2003 Harjeet Singh …Appellant Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another ... Respondents Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for appellant Sri K.K. Shah, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Sri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: July 30, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 19.12.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/F.T.C. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.C. No. 161 of 2002. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in claim petition are that on 25.4.2001, Tractor No. 8629 (Russian Tractor) being driven by its driver rashly, at Main Bazar, near Jai Medical Store, P.S. Bajpur District Udham Singh Nagar, hit the claimant due to which he sustained injuries on his person. The claimant claimed compensation against the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1-Harjeet Singh/appellant before this Court, who is the owner of offending Tractor, filed written statement admitting therein that on 25.4.2001 his tractor was going at Main Market from North to South for taking manure and 2 traffic was jamming due to overcrowding in market and congestion of vehicles. In the meanwhile, claimant himself collided with right tyre of tractor due to overcrowding. He also pleaded that he is the registered owner of tractor in question and his tractor was registered and on that date his tractor was insured with insurance company, policy of which was valid w.e.f. 27.11.2000 to 26.11.2001. He further pleaded that on the date of accident driver of tractor was Om Prakash, who was having valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, answering opposite party is liable to pay compensation, if any. Opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition and pleaded that claimant did not produce any document under the provisions of C.P.C. as well as M.V. Act. It has also pleaded that claimant neither supplied the number of insurance policy of alleged vehicle nor filed any policy, therefore, it denied the insurance of vehicle. It has further pleaded that claimant did not file F.I.R., charge sheet, spot inspection, medical report, injury report, x-ray report, permanent disability certificate, driving licence, papers relating to vehicle, therefore, this claim petition is bad and is not maintainable. The burden to prove this fact lies on the claimant that tractor in question was being plied by the driver having valid and effective driving licence. The claim petition has been filed on wrong facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim 3 petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.75,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of claimant, payable by opposite party no. 1-Harjeet Singh. The Tribunal further exonerated opposite party no. 2-insurance company from liability to pay compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/owner of vehicle has preferred the appeal before this Court. Heard Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for appellant, Sri K.K. Shah, Advocate for respondent no. 1, Sri Neeraj Upreti, Advocate for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. The short controversy in this case is as to whether at the time of accident driver of tractor in question was having valid and effective driving licence or not. The impugned judgment and award passed by the court below shows that issue no. 1 was framed in order to decide this point which reads as follows: “Whether at the time of accident driver of tractor in question no. P.N.Q.8629 was not having valid and effective driving licence?” I have gone through the impugned judgment and award thoroughly. The statement on behalf of insurance company is that driver of tractor no. 4 P.N.Q.8629 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Om Prakash has been mentioned as driver of tractor in question, who has been examined as DW-1 and he deposed that he brought his original driving licence, which was issued by R.T.O. Office, Udham Singh Nagar and copy of the same has been filed in Appendix-1 of his affidavit. This witness has also been cross- examined and he stated in his cross-examination that the driving licence which he filed, is for the purpose of plying motorcycle and motor car and there is no endorsement on the said driving licence to drive the tractor. From perusal of driving licence filed on record it clearly reveals that this is with regard to motor car and not with regard to drive the tractor. Another witness Sri Gyanesh Verma has also been produced by insurance company as DW- 2, who deposed that at the time of accident trolley was also attached with tractor, insurance of which is necessary under the Insurance Act, but in this case trolley was not insured. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence adduced before it came to the conclusion that at the time of accident tractor in question No. P.N.Q.8629 was not having valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Rest of the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to factum of accident and quantum of compensation appears to be justified and needs no interference by this Court. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5 Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP