IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 233 of 2005 Narain Singh … Appellant Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & others … Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 2. The appellant at the stage of appeal has moved an application No. 8968 of 2006 under order 41 rule 27, annexing therewith the driving licence of the driver – Naraian Singh. The objection was invited by the Insurance Company and Sri D.S. Patni, counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted before the Court that as per the report submitted by the investigator of the Company, the driving licence filed by the appellant is genuine. 3. In view of the driving licence, which was in possession of the driver of the vehicle was valid on the date of the accident, then the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be paid by the insurer of the vehicle. 4. Accordingly, the application No. 8968 of 2006 is allowed and the same be kept on record. 5. Both the parties have agreed to disposed of the appeal finally today itself. 2 6. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 24.02.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Ist Fast Track Court, Dehradun in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 204 of 2003, Smt. Kamla Devi & others Vs Narain Singh & another whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,08,908/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment against the appellant. 7. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.08.2003, Sri Jagatram (deceased) was going from Ronhat to Anroli in a tempo bearing registration No. HP01A/3175. The said tempo met with an accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. In the said accident, Jagatram sustained multiple injuries on his body. He was admitted in the P.G.I., Chandigarh for treatment, but during the course of his treatment, he had died on 25.08.2009 by the doctors, due to injuries sustained by him in the said accident. According to the claim petition, the deceased was 35 years of age and used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month by running a merchant shop. Therefore, the claimants filed a claim petition for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as compensation. 8. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statements before the Tribunal. Thereafter both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,08,908/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 24.02.2005. The Tribunal also directed that the 3 claim petition filed against the Insurance Company is dismissed, while the owner of the offending vehicle in question shall have the liability to pay the compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. 10. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri D.S. Pantni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle was having the valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The driving licence of the driver could not be filed before the Tribunal, as it was deposited in the file of the criminal case during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal. 12. At this stage, now the picture is quite clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the responsibility to pay the amount of compensation lies on the owner does not appear to be justified. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to an extent that the liability of paying the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal would be of the insurer of the vehicle i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. instead of the appellant (owner of the 4 vehicle) along with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award. 14. The amount, if any, deposited before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 17.12.2008 ASWAL