// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.946/1997 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Paramsukha S/o Kundan and Others Date of Order ::: 19.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Vinod Tyagi, Counsel for non-claimant- appellant Shri Hemendra Goyal, Counsel for claimant- respondents No.1 and 2 Shri S.C. Gupta, Counsel for non- claimant/respondent No.4 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimants-respondents No.1 and 2 filed an application for compensation in respect of death of their son Narendra Prasad, who died in a motor-accident took place on 25th September, 1991. The claim application was contested by the non-claimants No.1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the vehicle (the respondents No.3 and 4 herein) as well as the non-claimant No.3 Insurance Company (the appellant herein), by filing separate written-replies to the claim application. The non-claimants/respondents contended // 2 // that no accident took place at all and if the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the accident had taken place then also the owner of the vehicle cannot be fastened with any liability as the vehicle, in question, was insured with the non-claimant no.3/appellant – the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The non-claimant-appellant Insurance Company, in its written-reply, contended that there is a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the liability of the owner of the vehicle. It was contended that no immediate information was given by the owner of the vehicle to the Insurance Company about any accident took place with the vehicle. The learned Tribunal framed three issues. Both the parties led their oral and documentary evidence. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants. It was held that the accident took place on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and, as such, the non-claimants No.1 to 3 (the respondents No.3 and 4 and appellant herein) are liable for payment of compensation. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal, vide its impugned Award // 3 // dated 12th August, 1996 passed in Claim Case No.222/1992, awarded a sum of Rs.57,600/- towards loss of income and Rs.13,000/- for funeral expenses; thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.70,600/-. Being aggrieved with the same, the non- claimant/appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. The only submission of the learned counsel for the non-claimant-appellant Insurance Company is that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective licence. It was contended by him that the Insurance Company got examined DW-1 Rajeev P. Bhalerao, who stated that he filed an application Exhibit-D/1 before the Licensing Authority, Agra, after deposit of requisite fee; the receipt whereof is Exhibit- D/2 and it was reported that no such licence has been issued, and the report is Exhibit-D/3. He, therefore, contended that even if the said licence has been renewed subsequently by the Licensing Authority, Sawai Madhopur, then the same cannot validate the earlier fake licence. He, therefore, contended that the award passed by the Tribunal against the Insurance Company be set-aside and the insurance Company be exonerated to indemnify the liability of the owner being a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as contended above. // 4 // The learned counsel for the non-claimant- respondents contended that they got examined DW- 2 Om Sharan and exhibited the necessary documents to show that Licensing Authority, Agra, issued the driving licence and thereafter it has rightly been renewed by the Licensing Authority, Sawai Madhopur. He referred Exhibit- A/5, the certificate issued by the Licensing Authority, Agra, itself, to the effect that the driving licence, in question, was issued by the Licensing Authority, Agra, and, on that basis, he contended that the said driving licence cannot be said to be a fake licence. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has relied upon it and this is not a fit case for interference in the said finding based on documentary evidence, by this Court. He further contended that the said driving licence was renewed by the Licensing Authority, Sawai Madhopur, vide Exhibit-A/4 for the period from 03.08.1991 to 02.08.1994. The accident took place on 25.09.1991, therefore, there was valid and effective license on the date of the accident. He, therefore, contended that the contention of the learned counsel for the non- claimant-appellant Insurance Company is factually incorrect and the same has also not been appreciated by the learned Tribunal, therefore, this is not a fit case for // 5 // interference by this Court. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award, particularly the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant insurance Company admitted that no specific objection was taken in the written-reply filed on behalf of the Insurance Company about fake driving licence but, before the Tribunal, during the course of arguments, this point was argued and the same was dealt with and decided by the Tribunal, which is clear from Para 16 of the impugned judgment/award. It appears that the Licensing Authority, Agra initially made a report, on the application filed by the Insurance Company for issue of a copy of the said driving licence and furnishing particulars about it, to the effect that no such licence was issued by it, and subsequently issued another certificate to the non- claimant/respondents admitting that the driving licence, in question, was issued by their office. The Insurance Company got examined DW-1 Rajeev P Bhalerao and produced documentary evidence i.e. Exhibit-D/1 – the application filed by it before the Licensing Authority, Exhibit-D/2 – the copy of receipt having // 6 // deposited the requisite fee and Exhibit-D/3 – the report of the Licensing Authority. The non- claimants-respondents got examined DW-2 Om Sharan and produced and got exhibited documentary evidence i.e. Exhibit-A/5 – the certificate issued by the Licensing Authority, Agra, Exhibit-A/4 – the certificate issued by the Licensing Authority, Sawai Madhopur. The learned Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence in this regard thoroughly and recorded a finding in favour of the non- claimants No.1 and 2 (respondents No.3 and 4 herein) and against the Insurance Company. I have also examined the said finding in the light of above oral and documentary evidence and, after considering the same, I find that the driving licence in the present case was genuine and cannot be said to be a fake one as contended by the learned counsel for the non-claimant- appellant. The finding of the learned Tribunal is based on oral and documentary evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to interfere with the same. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed but no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//