1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Miscellaneous Appeal No.562 of 2016 ------ M/s National Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager, B.P. Agarwalla Building, Dhansar, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad through its legal cell, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Pradip Rawani son of Bhuklal Rawani, resident of Village Barki Bowa (Saitand), P.O. Bhuli, P.S. Tetulmari, District Dhanbad 2. Madhucon Project Limited, At Phularitand, P.O. & P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad, permanent address at Madhucon Project Limited, Jayant Project Singraul Sidhi, P.O., P.S. & District Singrauli (Madhya Pradesh) (Owner of Volvo) (hyva) bearing registration No.MP 53HA 0968 .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate ------ Order No.08 / Dated : 24.01.2025 This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company for being held liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,22,898/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization in Title (Motor Vehicle) Suit No.54/2014 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for permanent disability suffered by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The principal ground taken by the Insurance Company is that the definite case as pleaded before the Court below by the Insurance Company was that the driver of the offending vehicle Samaj Kumhar was not having a valid driving license, who was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time of accident. 3. In this case, FIR (Exhibit 4) was lodged being Baghmara (Barora) P.S. Case No.336 of 2013 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC against Samaj Kumhar, police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge sheet against him under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the IPC (Exhibit 5). Learned trial Court has returned the finding of fact with respect to Issue No.III that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent 2 driving by the Driver of the Hyva bearing registration No.MP 53HA 0968. 4. With regard to the validity of driving license, Issue No.IV was framed, however the learned Tribunal held that the onus was on the Insurance Company to adduce evidence to prove that the driver was not having a valid driving license. It is argued that in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu & Others Versus Vinod Kumar Lamba & Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208, the initial onus is on the owner of the vehicle to adduce into evidence the fundamental document like driving license and the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability where owner has failed to adduce these documents. 5. The owner had appeared before the Court below and contested the claim, but at no stage the driving license was filed by the owner of the vehicle. At the stage of appeal, the notices were issued and served, but the owner of the vehicle (respondent no.2) has not appeared. 6. I find much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the initial onus of adducing into evidence the fundamental document (driving license) is on the owner and having failed to adduce into evidence the driving license, he failed to discharge the initial onus. Unless the document is produced, the Insurance Company is not required to indemnify the owner. 7. Under the circumstance, Insurance Company is directed to make the payment of the compensation amount to the claimant with interest within a month of this order and will have right of recovery of the said amount from the owner of the vehicle. 8. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted to the final compensation amount to be paid to the claimant. Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit