Skip to content


New India Assurance Company Vs. Deen Dayal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2(1985)ACC418
AppellantNew India Assurance Company
RespondentDeen Dayal
Excerpt:
- - the insurance company or the other non-petitioners have failed to prove that there was no valid licence......the insurance company or the other non-petitioners have failed to prove that there was no valid licence. in my considered opinion, the insurance company has not discharged the burden at all and therefore, the issue had been rightly decided against the insurance company. contrary to it, claimsant have led evidence to prove that the dharam singh had licence. his evidence has been rightly believed by the tribunal i am also of the opinion that the standard of preponderance of evidence is to be relied in the accident claims cases and tribunal was justified in applying them.5. no other point was pressed by the counsel for the appellants. the appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed with cost.6. the appellant insurance company would deposit the amount awarded against it, if not.....
Judgment:

G.M. Lodha, J.

1. In this appeal the only point argued by Mr. Bhargava, the learned Counsel for New India Assurance Company against the award on the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Alwar dated 31st January, 1977 in case No. 74/1972 is that Dharam Singh driver of the truck No. RSM 591 was not holding only licence at the time of accident. Mr. Bhargava pointed out that according to the conditions of insurance policy, no liability can be against insured if the vehicle is driven by a person who is not holding a valid driving licence.

2. The relevant evidence was read before me. It was not disputed that the burden of proving that Dharam Singh had no valid driving licence was on the appellant lasurance Company. It was also not disputed that there is not iota of evidence led by Insurance Company to discharge this burden and to prove that Dharam singh had no valid driving licence.

3. The contention of Mr. Bhargava is that the positive evidence to prove that Dharam Singh had driving licence, is not satisfactory and Dharam Singh had adnuitted that he had no driving licence.

4. 1 have considered the above contention of Mr. Bhargava. In 1980 ACJ 513 and 1980 RLW 38 it has been held that the burden for proving such an issue is on the Insurance Company or person alleging that there was no valid license. Unless prima facie evidence is led to prove this issue, no rebuttal is required in law. The statement of Dharam Singh cannot bind claimsants as he is interested in himself as non-applicant. The Insurance Company or the other non-petitioners have failed to prove that there was no valid licence. In my considered opinion, the Insurance Company has not discharged the burden at all and therefore, the issue had been rightly decided against the Insurance Company. Contrary to it, claimsant have led evidence to prove that the Dharam Singh had licence. His evidence has been rightly believed by the Tribunal I am also of the opinion that the standard of preponderance of evidence is to be relied in the accident claims cases and Tribunal was justified in applying them.

5. No other point was pressed by the counsel for the appellants. The appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed with cost.

6. The appellant Insurance Company would deposit the amount awarded against it, if not deposited so far within a period of three months from today, failing which the claimsant would get interest from that date till the date of realisation at the rate of 12%.


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