Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd. v. Raj Bala & ORS.
!"# $% " & '(!) ''''''** ##" !
+$'
","#"" ) $ ''''''
$* ) !$
-. /(- 0' 0 0 0 -
0 - '1
(2
"# "$ $""#
%% &
'
+ , - -. !()
! ! 1)
)
! # 34
0 0 $ * (
$ "% $""3 6
+ / $/ 8''$$ 9
+
/:
/58 #:'
! 1
:
;
$
=
! / "1.
Whether accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tralla No. HR D/8739 by respondent No. 1, as alleged in the petition? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether Dasrath sustained injuries in the accident in question and died due to those injuries, as alleged in the petition.
3. Whether the petitioners are LRs of the deceased Dasrath and are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP
4. Whether respondent No.1 has no valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle as alleged by insurers? OPR3
5. Whether insured contravened the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged by insurer? OPR 3.
6. Relief."
+
7!
% 7
! ) ( >
-00 0
(
0(0
0
?
)
>
1)
)
+
( )
)
) (
) (
! @
!
/ "13 Learned counsel for respondent No. 4/insurer argued that original driving licence of respondent No. 1 was recovered by police after accident and was found to be fake. Learned counsel alleged that respondent No. 1 produced another driving licence during trial. Relying upon Javer Chand Vs. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1655, Rakesh Kumar Vs. Rajastjan State Transport Corporation & Ors. 1999
(3) L. J. R. 271, Ram Singh Vs. Amar Singh, 2001(2) L.J.R. 399 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nant Ram and others, 2005 ACJ 1408, learned counsel pleaded that respondent No. 1 could not have retained two driving licences and insurer was liable to recover compensation from the insured owner.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 denied that police recovered any driving licence from respondent no. 1 after the accident. Learned counsel alleged that police falsely planted a fake driving licence upon respondent No. 1 to implicate him. Learned counsel pleaded that respondent no. 1 had only one driving licence which he produced before the tribunal during evidence.
15. Allegations of respondent no. 4 against respondent No. 1 could be proved only if respondent No. 4 could prove by cogent evidence that police really recovered a driving licence from respondent No. 1. The mere fact that police had shown the recovery of a driving licence from respondent No. 1 in police challan does not prove above said fact conclusively. Respondent No. 4 failed to adduce any cogent evidence to show the recovery of any licence by police from respondent No. 1. Accordingly, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raj Rani etc. 1998, ACJ 175, respondent No. 4 cannot escape its liability. '
( ! )
8
, ) )
8
, 0
! )
8
, ) *
) !
)
) 8
,
*
"
0 !
(
)
(
)
5 67 8 10 0 -2
9 + 8/ + +
9 (
A