Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ramesh Kumar and Others

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—Appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Additional MACT, Koppal, in M.V.C. No. 52/2010, filed this appeal.

Respondent No. 1 filed M.V.C. No. 52/2010 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, in the Tribunal, against the appellant and respondent No. 2, insurer and owner respectively of lorry bearing No. KA-37/2467. The Tribunal having adjudicated the claim, allowed the petition in part and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 59,543/- with interest.

Shri. Ravindra R. Mane, learned advocate, contended that the appellant is not liable to indemnify respondent No. 2, on the ground that he committed breach of terms of insurance policy by allowing respondent No. 3 to drive the lorry - a goods carriage, at the relevant time, without holding a valid driving licence, as his driving licence to drive transport vehicle had expired long before the accident. He submitted that the impugned judgment fastening the liability on the appellant is erroneous and hence, interference is called for.

Shri. N.D. Gunde, learned advocate for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment by making reference to the decisions in (i) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others, (2008) ACJ 721 : AIR 2008 SC 1418 : (2008) 1 JT 617 : (2008) 149 PLR 251 : (2008) 1 SCALE 642 : (2008) 3 SCC 464 : (2008) AIRSCW 906 : (2008) 1 Supreme 378 , (ii) S. Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, (2013) 5 ABR 385 : (2013) 3 ACC 19 : (2013) ACJ 1944 : (2013) 7 AD 202 : AIR 2013 SC 2262 : (2013) 10 JT 85 : (2013) 172 PLR 409 : (2013) 3 RCR(Civil) 654 : (2013) 7 SCALE 637 : (2013) 7 SCC 62 and (iii) Kulwant Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2014) 4 ACC 640 : (2014) ACJ 2873 : (2014) 4 RCR(Civil) 977 .

Keeping in view the rival contentions, the point for consideration is, whether the Tribunal has committed error in saddling liability on the appellant.

Claimant got himself as P.W. 1 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 18. For the insurance company, R.W. 1 was examined and Exs. R. 1 to R. 2 were marked. Ex. R2 shows that the driving licence in respect of non-transport vehicle was obtained on 01.07.1998 and endorsement of transport was made on 20.11.2003 and the same was in force upto 20.11.2006. The driving licence was renewed on 11.12.2008 valid upto 10.12.2011. The accident in question occurred on 05.12.2008. The Tribunal, being of the opinion that the driver had knowledge regarding driving, has over-ruled the contention, that the liability cannot be fastened on the on the insurer of the offending vehicle.

The occurrence of the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, insurance coverage by the appellant in respect of the offending vehicle as on the date of occurrence of the accident, as has been found by the Tribunal, was not questioned by Shri R.R. Mane.

In Annappa''s (supra), the Apex Court having referred to provisions of Sections 2(21) and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which defines ''light motor vehicle'' and ''medium goods vehicle'' respectively and the Rules prescribed, the forms of licence i.e. Rule 14 and Form 4, has held as follows:

From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that transport vehicle has now been substituted for ''medium goods vehicle'' and ''heavy goods vehicle''. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle.

A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.

The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law."

In S. Iyappaan (supra), the question was, whether the driver, who had licence to drive ''light motor vehicle'' could drive light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, without an endorsement to drive commercial vehicle. It was held therein, that the insurance company cannot disown its liability. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

"18. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer''s right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and (iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy."

In Kulwant Singh (supra), the question raised for consideration was, whether the insurance company is entitled to recover, on the ground of breach of conditions of insurance policy, when the driver driving light motor vehicles but failed to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle. Having regard to the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, it was held that there was no breach of any conditions of the insurance policy entitling the insurance company to recovery rights.

In the instant case, the accident occurred on 05.12.2008. The driver of the offending vehicle had driving licence (NT) with effect from 01.07.1998 for a period of 20 years. Endorsement of (Transport) was made on 20.11.2003 and was effective till 20.11.2006 and there is renewal on 11.12.2008 valid upto 10.12.2011.

Keeping in view the ratio of law in the aforesaid judgments, the Tribunal is justified in saddling the liability on the appellant. There is no merit in the contentions urged by Shri. R.R. Mane in favour of the appellant. The appeal is devoid of merit. Hence, appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Transfer the amount in deposit to the Tribunal.