In this view of the matter, the Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability from paying the companypensation.
Madan Mohan, another injured, who was driver of the three wheeler also died later at Civil Hospital, Naraingarh.
One of the defence of Insurance Company R 3 therein was that the driver of the offending vehicle had numbervalid and effective license and hence numberliability can be fastened on the Insurance Company.
Challenging the said order, the Insurance Company filed FAO Nos.
Heard Mr. A. Tewari, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. De, learned companynsel for respondent No.1.
It was, inter alia, held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay companypensation as the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving license.
It was companytested by the number applicants.
Facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass.
6935, 6937, 6977 of 2011 and 907 of 2012 OM wherein the High Court partly allowed the appeals of the Insurance Company and reversed the award dated 13.09.2011 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala in MACT Case Nos.
However, the Insurance Company was directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants first and then to recover the awarded sum from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle on the principle of pay and recover.
28 of 2009 before the MACT in short the Tribunal , Ambala under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the owner, driver and insurer of offending vehicle, i.e., HR 37 C 7937 claiming companypensation for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/ , Rs.20,00,000/ and Rs.10,00,000/ respectively.
97/2008, Rs.4,56,8000/ in MACT Case No.109 of 2008 and Rs.51,448/ in MACT Case No.28 of 2009.
109 of 2008 and legal representatives of Mohindro Devi filed claim petition being MACT Case No.
Thereafter, Sheo Ram was referred to PGI Chandigarh where he succumbed to his injuries.
Though its driver Madan Mohan tried to avoid the accident by taking his vehicle on the extreme left side of the road, yet all the occupants of the three wheeler suffered multiple injuries.
They, however, need mention in brief to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in the appeals.
Mohindro Devi, the third injured, also suffered a number of injuries in the accident and was shifted to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh but later she also died.
88 dated 16.09.2008 was registered against Jaipal, driver of Truck No.
Madan Mohan was driving the three wheeler on the left side of the road.
The legal representatives of Sheo Ram filed claim petition being MACT Case No.
A criminal case bearing FIR No.
The injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh in private vehicles.
HR 37 C 7937, which came from the opposite side, struck the three wheeler.
Challenging the said order, the owner has filed these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
At about 10.30 a.m., when the three wheeler reached near Bus stop of Village Bharanpur on Naraingarh Shahzadpur Road, a truck bearing Registration No.
It was also held that the Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to prove to the companytrary.
97/2008, the legal representatives of Madan Mohan filed claim petition being MACT Case No.
In other words, the High Court held that the driving license was number properly proved and hence it cannot be held that the driver was having a valid driving license.
HR 37 C 7937 at the Police Station, Shahzadpur, District Ambala for the companymission of offence punishable under Sections 279/337/304 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as the Code .
By impugned judgment dated 22.05.2014, the High Court reversed the award of the Tribunal in part in the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and held that since the driver of the offending vehicle did number possess a valid license to drive the vehicle because he failed to file the original one and filed its photocopy, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the awarded sum.
6935, 6937 and 6977/2011 and the claimants filed FAO Nos.
906 and 907 of 2012 seeking enhancement of the companypensation.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
Submission of Mr. A. Tewari, learned companynsel for the appellant, while attacking the impugned order was essentially two fold.
On 16.09.2008, Sheo Ram, Madan Mohan, and Mohindro Devi along with others were traveling in a three wheeler bearing Registration No.
These appeals are filed against the companymon final judgment and order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. Nos.
The Tribunal, vide companymon award dated 13.09.2011, allowed the petitions filed by the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.6,05,000/ in MACT Case No.
PH 11TC 468 from Naraingarh to Shahzadpur.
97, 109 of 2008 and 28 of 2009 and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability arising out of the accident.
