Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Manorma and Others

Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 279 of 1998 Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Manorma And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- B.D.Shukla Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶2The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company challenging the award dated 29.11.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VI Additional District Judge, Kanpur Dehat in M.A.C.P. No.287/1994.

¶3Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the award of Tribunal is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proving that the offending vehicle was not insured with the insurance company and the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It is further contended that the burden was upon the owner to firstly discharge that the offending vehicle was duly insured and driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence.

¶4Be that as it may, the claimants/respondents in the claim petition have disclosed the number of the cover note. It is not a case of the insurance company that this cover note was not of insurance company. Para-17 of the claim petition is reproduced hereinbelow:-"7-

बबममकमपनबकमनममवपतमजजससससमबनननतददररटनमगसतवमहनकमबबममथम।: -

ओररयनटलइनशययरसनसककपनबकमनपदरजल०डडवबजनलआडफस नक03, 111 -ए/6 अशयक नगर,

कमनपदर208012

तथमकबरनयटसकखयम-31/24/00021

वडदनमक

13.4.93 सस

12.4.94

तकववनहव।"

¶5Since the claimants/respondents have given the details of the insurance policy and period of insurance policy and this fact is not denied by the insurance company, therefore, in such view of the fact, this Court does not find any illegality committed by Tribunal in concluding that the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company.

¶6So far as the issue of driving licence is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Others, AIR 2004 SC 1531 has held that the burden to prove that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence is upon the insurance company. The record reveals that the appellant-insurance company did not make any effort to obtain the driving licence and get it verified. Since, the controversy is concluded by the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶7Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 2.11.2023 R.S. Tiwari High Court of Judicature at Allahabad