® ^•^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No.- ^ 72009 ^^ APPELLANT ^\< fs^ ^' •^y ^' ;'.^' .0^ :- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ^ INFRONT OF ADARSH BAL MANDIR, MAIN ROAD, DHAMTARI, THROUGH DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MADINA BUILDING, JAIL ROAD, RAIPUR Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:- (-i- ^-2. ^ ^ SMT. POONAM SHUKLAAGE ABOUT 25 YRS., WIDOW OF LATE BRIJESH SpUKLA, KU. RASHI D/0 LATE BRIJESH SpUKLA, AGE 03 YRS. THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER APPLICANT POONAM KU. USHAKIRAN SHUKLA CHHANNULAL SHUKLA, D/0 ALL RESIDENT, SHARDA CHOWK, JORAPARA, RAIPUR RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS:- 4. ^ 5. ^ Q-6' ^ .^ i l^ 7.•^ > SHEKH MUSHTAK @ SHEKH MUSTAFA S/0 SHEKH ISMAIL, RESIDENT OF IDGAHBHATA, RAIPUR C.G. MOHD. -ASLAM KHAN S/0 HANIF KHAN, SUPER ROAD;LINES, G.E. ROAD, TATIBANDH, RAIPUR PUNIT RAM SAHU S/0 SHRI GENDRAM SAHU, RESIDENT OF PARSULIDIH KHORPA, ABHANPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR,^ _^^ ^^.^ (1) KHEDl^SINGH^/0 BIRBAL(SINGI v^=s:===^^--~&''c'^ (2) LAXMINATH(SINGfl)S/0 BIRBAN s/c^(si^j3> BOTH RESIDENT VILLAGE DHONDHARA, POST- PARSADA, TAH. ABHANPUR, DISTRICT-RAIPUR ^M/^/^ (V^. T'HE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE-2, RAIPUR, R.D.A. BUILDING, BAJRANG MARKET, G.E. ROAD, RAIPUR ^c^-^ ^ ..2.. ^ ••Arf»» APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEmCLE ACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILA8PUR DB: HON»BLBI.M. QUDDUSI & HON»BLBN.K. AGRASSfAL, JJ MISC. APPEALlNo.709 OF 2009 Vs. MISC. APPBAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBmCLES ACT. [QQQ APPEARANCB: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appeUant. Mr. Vipin. Tiwari, counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Suresh Tandon, counsel for the respondents 6 & 7 Mr. Raj Awasfhy, counsel for respondent no. 8. JUDGMBNT (ORALt (31.08.2010) Per I.M. OUDDUSI 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insiiraace Coxnpaay agaiast fhe mipugned award dated 09th February, 2009 passed by the Xfh Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claun Case No.44/2007. 2. brief facts of fhe case are fhat on fhe fateful day i.e., 22.04.2004 deceased Brajesh Shukla was goiag on foot with a Maniti Vaa which was danis^ed ia aa accident. The said damaged Marati Vaa was beiag pulled by a Tractor witli fhe help of rope to reach to fhe PoUce Station. When fhey were reaching to Dilsukh Dhabhe on foot, a Truck bearing Regn.No. C.G,04/ZC-0649 which was rashly commg from APPELLANT The Oriental Insuranoe Co.Ltd., RESPONDBNTS Smt. Poonam Shukla and others '^ ^;^ ^ ,'^ ^ '^"".^ back side has dashed Brijesh Shukla causiag him serious iajuries aad fhe said ojffendiD.g vehicle did not stop aad raa away. The deceased was adxnitted ia hospital wherc he was declared dead. The claimaats filed AppUcation claiming Rs,50 lakhs as compensation. Afker hearing fhe parties and considering fhe laaterial on record, fhe Tribunal awarded Rs.8,49,000/- aiid fastened Uabitity on the driver aad owner of fhe ofifendmg track as weU as fhe iasurance compaoy joiafly and severatly. 3. The grounds taken beforc fhis Court is fhat fhe Driver of fhe Truck namely Sheik Mushtak @ Shekh Mustafa, rcspondent no.4 hereia, was not havmg valid driving Ucense. The Tribunal recorded the statenient of the driver ia which he stated fhat he brought his driviag Ucense which was produced by fhe appeUant but fhey had not put aay question to him about fhe correctaess of fhe driviag license. It was also not suggested that the driving license was not valid on fhe date of accident ia question. More over, though fhe driviag Ucense was not exhibited but fhe Xerox copy of fhe same is avaUable on record which shows fhat fhe saine is coinputerized driviag license which was renewed on 18.12.2005 extending the validity period upto 18.12.2008. Two witaesses J&om the office of Road Traasport Aufhority - one is fhe Clerk aad the ofher is R.T.A-, himself were produced but they could not state about ffae fact fhat fhe driviag Ucense ia question was not valid. They have stated fhat due to non-avaOability of document (as the driviag Ucense was coiaputerized one) they caanot say whether fhe driving Ucense was valld or not. However, accordiae to fhe •^•"w^"^^ /^•L\ (^^!i \ ;'~'y statement of R.T.A., fhe true copy of fhe drivmg Ucense was ascertamed fxom the computerized section but no efifort was made to get fhe copies or to produce witaiesses &om coiiaputerized section. Thereforc, we are of fhe opinion fhat the leanaed Tribunal has committed no iUegaUty or impropriety io: holdiag fhat fhe driver of fhe vehicle Sheikh Mustak was haviag valid aad effective driviag Ucense at fhe time of accident The appeUant failed to dischai^e its burden ia proviag fhat the driver of the vehicle Sheikh Mustafa was not haviag valid driviag Ucence on the date of accident ia question, 3. In view offhe above, this appeal has no force aad fhe same is dismissed accordiagly. There shsdl be no order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Rao