IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Dev Kishan & Others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1001/2010) DATE OF JUDGMENT : December 01, 2010 P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Mukul Singhvi for the appellant. BY THE COURT : Instant appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bhilwara under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against judgment/award dated 08.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Claim Case No.754/07, whereby, learned Tribunal passed claim of Rs.1,58,660/- in favour of claimant-respondent No.1. 2 As per facts of the case, claimant-respondent met with an accident on 06.09.2007 when he was going on his motor-cycle No.RJ-06/6M/1296 to Amli village. At that time, near Salvadi Chouraha, at about 2.45 P.M., jeep bearing No.RJ-14-GB-1105 came from opposite direction and hit his motor-cycle and, in that accident, claimant received so many injuries upon his body. For the aforesaid accident, claim petition was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5,20,000/- before the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal, after framing four issues, held upon adjudication that undisputedly the accident took place and motor-cycle of the claimant was hit by the jeep which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The claimant received injuries which is found to be in existence as per injury report Ex.-6 and X-ray report, Ex.-7. The claimant suffered 15% disability. Therefore, learned Tribunal after taking into consideration all relevant facts and evidence on record passed award of Rs.1,58,660/- along with interest @ 6 per cent from the date of filing the claim petition. 3 The insurance company by way of filing this appeal is challenging the award solely on the ground that as per criminal case registered against the jeep driver, the driver of the jeep was not possessing driving licence at the time of the occurrence. Learned Tribunal however held that challan has been filed by the police against the jeep driver but, thereby, it cannot be presumed that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing driving licence. Learned Tribunal observed that as per pleadings of the insurance company no notice for producing the driving licence was issued by the insurance company to the owner of the jeep and driver thereof which was admittedly insured with the insurance company. Learned Tribunal found that the insurance company was required to issue notice to the owner of the vehicle as well as driver of the vehicle, so also, enquiry was to be made from the R.T.O. Office. But, all these proceedings were not undertaken by the insurance company and bald allegation was levelled that driver of the vehicle was not possessing the driving licence. In the Court also, no application was filed by the insurance 4 company seeking any direction to the driver of the vehicle to produce his driving licence. In this view of the matter, learned Tribunal found that the plea taken by the insurance company is not correct. Having carefully gone through the adjudication made by the Tribunal upon the question of possessing driving licence, I am of the opinion that the reasons for not accepting the plea of the insurance company are based upon sound appreciation of facts and evidence on record. The insurance company failed to perform its duty whereby it was to issue notice to the owner and driver of the vehicle to produce the driving licence. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in this appeal because the judgment/award passed by the Tribunal, impugned in this appeal, is just and proper and based upon proper appreciation of the material on record. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.