IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURTNOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) NO. \w l 2008 APPELLANT lClCi Lombard General Insurance INSURER/RESPONDENT No.3 ”Co. Ltd, Icml Towers, Bandra Kuna /, Complex, Through it’s Legal Manager, 3rd Floor, Lal Ganga Shopping Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ,5“ xmkfl, we VERSUS RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT /, State of Chhattlsgarh (Department of Police), through Superintendent Headquarter, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh of Police, RESPONDENT NO. 1 Gurmeet Singh, son of Shri Kripal Singh, aged about 3O years, resident of 27 Kholi, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bila‘spur, Chhattisgarh l DRIVER ] .r"'Smt. Tej Kaur Baali, wife of Shri Kripal Singh Baali, age not known to the appellant, resident of Muthali, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENT NO. 2 «‘5 [VEHICLE OWNER] MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE VEHICLES ACT 1988 Mm HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhe Shyam Sharma . _ Miscellaneous Aggeal 1C.) No.1508 of 2008 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. VGI‘SUS State of Chhattisgarh (Department of Police) and others ORDER Post for 1 7 -O8—201 1 Sdl- R.S.Sharma Judge ““WWWWmw-WWW Ww\k\< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble‘”Shri Justice Radhe Sh am Sharma Miscellaneous A eal C. No.1508 of 2008 Present: Shri Amrito Das, caunsel for the appellant. Shri S.R.J.Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 and 3. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ORDER (Passed on [jZ August, 2011) This appeal has been preferred ‘by non-applicant lClCl Lombard General Insurance Company Limited challenging award dated 18—8-2008 passed by 13‘ Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.244/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the date of accident, i.e., 4- 4-2006, a Government Jeep bearing registration No.CG 03 0256, allotted to Police Department of the State, was returning from duty. At the time of return, when the jeep was being driven on the road near Mungeii Naka, a Scorpio bearing registration No.CG 12 7921, which was being driven by non-applicant No.1 Gurmeet Singh rashly and negligently and coming from opposite direction, dashed the jeep on its front. The jeep got damaged in the accident. The accident Agpellant lClCl Lcmbard Insurance versus Co. Ltd. Resgondents State of Chhattisgarh (Department of Police) WWWMMMWWW WW“, u \ \ “3W 1 C? r 2 was reported to Police Station Civi! Line, Bilaspur. An expenditure of Rs.87,014l— was incurred in repairing of the jeep. The State (Department of Police) preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1988’) before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.87,014/— for the damages caused to the jeep. 3. The Tribunal, allowing the claim petition, has awarded a sum of Rs.87,014/- as compensation in favour of the claimant/State (Department of Police) fastening liability to satisfy the award on the non-applicants/driver, owner and insurer of the Scorpio, jointly or severally. 4, Shri Amrito Das, teamed counsel for the appellant argued that the driver of the Scorpio has admitted in criminal Court that he had driven the Scorpio without having a driving licence. The admission made by the driver of the Scorpio in the criminal Court is relevant in the instant case. ln view of the admission made by the driver of the Scorpio that he did not possess a valid and effective licence to drive the Scorpio at the time of accident, the appellant/insurance company is not liable to indemnify. Learned counsel placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. K. Balasubramanian and others, 2008 ACJ 2553 (Madras). 5. Shri S.R.J.Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1, supporting the impugned award, submitted that the award does not call for any interference by this Court. 3 6. i have heard Iearned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. The Tribunal, in paragraph 9 of the impugned award, has heid that the burden to prove that the driver of the Scorpio did not possess a valid and effective licence to drive the Scorpio at the time of accident was on the appellant/insurance company. It has been further heid that the appellant/insurance company did not adduce any evidence with regard to non- possession of a valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the Scorpio. 7. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. K. Balasubramanian and others (supra), the High Court of Madras has heid thus: “10. ....... It is a well settled proposition of Iaw that the judgments of the criminal courts are neither binding on the civil court/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal nor relevant in a civil case or a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, except for the limited purpose of showing that there was a criminal prosecution which ended in conviction or acquittal. But there is an exception to the general rule. When an accused pleads guilty and is convicted based on his admission, then the judgment of criminal court becomes admissible and relevant in civil proceedings and proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, not because it is a judgment of the criminal court, but as a document containing an admission. Of course, admissions are not the conclusive proof of the fact admitted therein. But unless and until they are proved to be incorrect or false by the person against whom the admissions are sought to be used as evidence, the same shall be the best piece of evidence. In this case, though the appellant did have the right to lead evidence to disprove the facts admitted in the criminal case, no evidence has been adduced on the side of the appellant in the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. n 8. Mere mention in the criminal Court’s judgment about the driver not having licence, muchiess a valid driving licence, is not sufficient. It is well established legal principle that the finding given in the criminal Court’s judgment cannot be taken aid and cannot be taken advantage in claim cases. The best method is to summon the driver to produce the driving licence and also to take appropriate steps to examine him. lf the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remain ex parte, it is duty of the insurance company to take appropriate steps to summon the driver and examine him. lf the driver is summoned and if he has produced the driving licence, it is sumcient. If he did not respond to summons and did not appear nor did he produce the driving licence, an adverse inference can be drawn that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. 9. ln the instant case, the driver and the owner of the Scorpio were ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant/insurance company did not move any application before the Tribunal for examination of the driver of the Scorpio. Therefore, mere admission of the charge by the driver of the Scorpio framed against him before the criminal Court is not sumcient to draw an inference against him that he did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. ln view of the above facts and circumstances of V, the case, l find that there is no illegality or‘infnrmity in the impugned award and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 5 10. In the result, the award under appeal is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. NO order as to costs. Sd/- R.S.Sharma Judge Gopal