WAZEER AHMAD vs THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010004512015

2026:UHC:10003

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY


APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.209 OF 2015

st
31 October, 2026

Wazeer Ahmad -- Appellant

Versus

The New India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others

…Respondents.


Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Rajat Mittal and Mr. Akram Parwez,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Harshit Bisht,
learned counsel.


JUDGMENT: ( per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J. )

The appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by appellant assailing
judgment and award dated 11.03.2014 passed by the
learned MACT/ District Judge, Dehradun in MACP
No.86/2009, “ Smt. Sushma Chauhan Vs. Narendra
Kumar and Others ”.
2. Learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and
the Insurance Company was directed to pay awarded
amount to the claimants. It was further provided that
1

UKHC010004512015

2026:UHC:10003

the Insurance Company would be at liberty to recover
the said amount from owner of the vehicle.
3. Perusal of the record reveals that the
Insurance Company has paid entire dues to claimant
and, as such, the dispute now remains between owner of
the vehicle and the Insurance Company.
4. Perusal of the order sheets also reveals that
the compulsory statutory deposit made by appellant was
also remitted to the learned Tribunal.
5. Appellant has contended that driver of the
vehicle was having valid driving license to ply vehicle on
the date of the accident, as such, learned Tribunal had
erred in considering the said aspect in fixing liability on
owner of the vehicle.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company contended that only a photocopy of the driving
license was produced before learned Tribunal and owner
of the vehicle or driver of the vehicle had not appeared
before learned Tribunal and had not produced the original
documents, as such, the directions issued by learned
Tribunal to pay and recover cannot be said to be illegal or
2

UKHC010004512015

2026:UHC:10003

arbitrary.
7. Learned counsel for appellant, however,
contends that by an application filed under Order 41 Rule
27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC appellant had
produced the original license of the driver which is
enclosed as Annexure-1 to the said application.
8. Perusal of the said document reveals that
though it has been stated in the application filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC that original license of the driver is
being enclosed with the affidavit, however, in fact, it is
the form 54 which is enclosed wherein the details of the
driver and the driving license possessed by him have
been endorsed which reveals that as per report of the
licensing authority of the Motor Vehicle Department,
Dehradun driver of the vehicle - Narendra Singh was
having a driving license which was issued on 27.08.1999
and was valid till 26.08.2011. However, the fact remains
that original driving license has not been enclosed along
with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
9. Learned counsel for respondent/ Insurance
Company contends that the fact that driver of the
offending vehicle was having valid driving license can be
3

UKHC010004512015

2026:UHC:10003

considered by learned Tribunal and the matter can be
remitted back to be decided on the said issue alone. He
also refers to an order dated 02.09.2026 passed by a Co-
ordinate Bench in AO No.405/2012 wherein, in similar
circumstances, the application filed under Order 41 Rule
27 CPC was allowed and the matter was remanded back
to the concerned Tribunal to permit the parties to adduce
evidence in support of their contentions. Paragraph no.6
to 8 of the said order reads as under:
“6. In the connected AO No. 424 of 2012 filed by the
Insurance Company, the ground taken is that the
driver of the offending vehicle i.e. bus was not having
a valid license, but, since the verification report
alongwith Form 54 was received by the Insurance
Company only after passing of the award by the
MACT, as such, that report could not be produced
before the Tribunal concerned and they have also
moved a report in an application under Order 41 Rule
27 of the CPC for taking it on record.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.

8. Considering the submissions, under the facts and
circumstances of the case, both the applications filed
under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in both the Appeals from
Orders are allowed and the matter is remanded back
to the concerned Tribunal to permit the parties to
adduce evidence in support of their contentions and
decide the matter expeditiously. It is further made
clear that the entire awarded amount has been
deposited by the Insurance Company before the
concerned Tribunal and vide order dated 09.04.2013,
this Court have permitted the claimant to withdraw
50% of the deposited amount. Since, the matter is
remanded back, the only controversy to be decided by
the Tribunal is, as to whether the Insurance Company
would be liable to recover the awarded amount from
Transport Corporation or not. As such, in the interest
of justice, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the
4

UKHC010004512015

2026:UHC:10003

amount, as deposited by the Insurance Company.”

10. Learned counsel for appellant fairly concedes
that original driving license has not been enclosed with
the application. However, he submits that form-54
enclosed with the application is the document of the
licensing authority of the Motor Vehicle Department,
Dehradun and appellant may be permitted to adduce the
evidence in support of the contention that driver was
having the valid driving license and the Tribunal may be
directed to decide the matter expeditiously.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is
allowed. The matter is remanded back to the concerned
Tribunal to permit appellant to adduce evidence in
support of his contention. As entire amount has been
paid to the claimants, thus, the only controversy, which
the Tribunal has to decide, is as to whether the Insurance
Company would be liable to recover the awarded amount
from appellant or not.
12. Claimants need not be issued any notice after
the matter is received by the concerned Tribunal.
5

UKHC010004512015

2026:UHC:10003

13. It is hoped and expected that learned Tribunal
shall make every endeavour to decide the case within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
14. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous
applications, if any pending, shall stand disposed of.



____________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt:31.10.2026
Sukhbant
6