Skip to content


New India Assurance Co. Vs. Smt. Manbhari Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal from Order No. 133 of 1979
Judge
Reported inI(1986)ACC151; [1987]61CompCas754(All)
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 110A
AppellantNew India Assurance Co.
RespondentSmt. Manbhari Devi and ors.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- - when a driving licence was issued by a public authority, there would be a presumption under the law that the licence had been issued by the said authority after having been satisfied that the driver had possessed the requisite qualifications to obtain the licence and that all the conditions attached thereto were fully satisfied......on the part of the appellant, as the driver of the bus no. rjf 2877 did not possess a legal driving licence at the time of the accident. he submits that the onus is on the claimants to prove that the driver had possessed a valid driving licence. i do not see any force in this submission. when a driving licence was issued by a public authority, there would be a presumption under the law that the licence had been issued by the said authority after having been satisfied that the driver had possessed the requisite qualifications to obtain the licence and that all the conditions attached thereto were fully satisfied. it is for the appellant to rebut the presumption that the driving licence was issued without the conditions having been complied with. thetrial court observed that merely.....
Judgment:

Om Prakash Verma, J.

1. This is a first appeal from order by M/s. New India Assurance Co. (hereinafter referred to as ' the appellant'), against the judgment and decree dated October 5, 1978, passed by the IInd Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahr (for short ' the ADJ '), under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, awarding compensation at Rs. 24,000.

2. One Sri Satish Chand Mittal died on the spot on September 25, 1976, when he was travelling on the pillion of a scooter that met with an accident with bus No. RJF 2877, which was insured by the appellant. The kith and kin of the deceased claimed damages. The petition was decreed for Rs. 24,000. Aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The short point urged for the appellant is that there was no liability on the part of the appellant, as the driver of the bus No. RJF 2877 did not possess a legal driving licence at the time of the accident. He submits that the onus is on the claimants to prove that the driver had possessed a valid driving licence. I do not see any force in this submission. When a driving licence was issued by a public authority, there would be a presumption under the law that the licence had been issued by the said authority after having been satisfied that the driver had possessed the requisite qualifications to obtain the licence and that all the conditions attached thereto were fully satisfied. It is for the appellant to rebut the presumption that the driving licence was issued without the conditions having been complied with. Thetrial court observed that merely an allegation was made by the appellant but no evidence was adduced to substantiate the allegation that the licence was illegal.

4. No other contention has been raised before me for and on behalf of the appellant. In the circumstances, I do not see any merit in the case of the appellant.

5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated October 5, 1978, are affirmed. The claimants will get costs of Rs. 200 from the appellant.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //