New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Chameli

Rakesh Garg, J.—This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO No. 4621 and 4622 of 2014 which have arisen out of one common award of the Tribunal disposing of two claim petitions having arisen out of one and the same accident dated 8.2.2013 involving the same vehicle i.e. Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No. HR-22G-1200. Claim petition No. 21 of 2013 (FAO No. 4621 of 2014) has been filed by widow and children of deceased Pala Ram whereas claim petition No. 22 of 2013 (FAO No. 4622 of 2014) has been filed by the LRs. of Suresh Kumar deceased.

As per the common pleadings, Pala Ram and Suresh Kumar (both deceased) were returning to their home on 8.2.2013 on motorcycle bearing No. HR-07-M-8454 while Suresh Kumar was driving the above said motorcycle and Pala Ram was the pillion rider. The said motorcycle was hit by Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No. HR-22G-1200 which was being driven by respondent No. 5 Ranjit son of Bishan Singh at a very fast speed in a rash and negligent manner and as a result thereof, both Suresh Kumar and Pala Ram fell down on the road along with motorcycle and sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. The offending vehicle also fell in pits near the road, whereas, respondent No. 5 fled away from the spot and thus, the claimants in both the claim applications claimed compensation.

Upon notice, the driver/owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim applications by filing a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections further pleading that no accident as alleged ever took place involving the vehicle in question and a false FIR was lodged against him in collusion with local police. It was further pleaded that driver-Ranjit Singh was possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time and the vehicle in question was duly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.

The appellant-Insurance Company vide separate written statement denied the accident involving the vehicle in question resulting into deaths of Pala Ram and Suresh Kumar, their occupation and dependency of the claimants upon them and further pleaded the violation of the terms and conditions of policy alleging that Ranjit Singh was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. In the end, dismissal of the claim petitions was prayed.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in both the petitions:

1) Whether Pala Ram son of Ran Singh resident of village Sisla District Kaithal and Suresh Kumar son of Mewa Singh resident of village Kakrod, District Jind had died on account of the injuries sustained in a road side vehicular accident which had occurred on 8.2.2013 in the area of Police Station Titram, District Kaithal on account of rash and negligent driving of Bolero jeep bearing No. HR-22-G-1200 by respondent No. 1? OPP

2) Whether the claimants of claim petition no. 21 of 2013 are entitled to be compensated for the death of above Pala Ram having occurred in this accident if so to what extent and by whom? OPP

3) Whether the claimants of claim petition No. 22 of 2013 are entitled to be compensated for the death of above Suresh Kumar having occurred in this accident, if so to what extent and by whom? OPP

4) Whether respondent No. 1 was driving the above vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as pleaded by respondent No. 3 in its reply, if so its effect? OPR-3

5) Whether the petitions have been filed by the claimants in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, if so its effect? 6) Relief.

The parties led their evidence.

The claimants led sufficient evidence to prove the accident in question whereas respondent No. 5 did not utter a single word in his statement regarding his false implication and on the basis of the evidence on record, it was held that Pala Ram and Suresh Kumar deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by Ranjit Singh.

The claimants in MACT Case No. 21 of 2013 were granted a compensation of Rs. 7,94,660/- on account of death of Pala Ram and claimants in MACT Case No. 22 of 2013 were entitled to compensation of Rs. 9,78,200/-.

The Tribunal further found that Ranjit Singh was having a valid and effecting driving licence at the relevant time and the vehicle in question was duly insured. It was further found that there was no collusion between the claimants and the driver of the offending vehicle and there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Thus, it was held that the appellant along with driver/insurer of the vehicle in question were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

Feeling dissatisfied from the aforesaid award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the instant appeals challenging the impugned award in both the cases.

Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and findings of the impugned award in this regard cannot be sustained. According to the counsel for the appellant, it has been established on record that the driver of the offending vehicle was having two licences i.e. Ex. RD as well as Ex. RA whereas no person can hold two driving licences at the same time as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and in view thereof, the findings on issue No. 4 are liable to be set aside and reversed in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company.

The argument raised is misconceived as in a case where a person is having two driving licences then it is for the Licensing Authority to take action for having two driving licenses against such a driver in accordance with law. However, in case of claim of compensation, it cannot be said that in case the driver is having two driving licences, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability once the claimant having established on record a valid Insurance Policy and further valid and effective driving licence in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, it could not be disputed before this Court that a driving licence Ex. RA was issued in the year 2009 i.e. prior to the accident and thus, it cannot be presumed that the same was prepared after accident. In fact no evidence has been led by the appellant to challenge the validity of the driving licence Ex. RA. Moreover, the Tribunal has given a finding that the other driving licence Ex. RD, which is shown to be issued by the Licensing Authority, Fatehabad, has not been duly proved by the appellant-Insurance Company.

Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellant has tried to raise an argument challenging the quantum of compensation granted in favour of the respondent-claimants. However, it could not be shown as to how the amount awarded in favour of the respondent-claimants was excessive.

No other argument has been raised.

In view thereof, there is no merit in both the appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.