Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sima Sarkar & Ors.

,,

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.",,

CAN 3165 of 2017 is an application for withdrawal in F.M.A. 3352 of 2013. While hearing such application, we have heard the parties on the",,

merits of the appeal and the cross-objection. We propose to decide F.M.A. 3352 of 2013 and C.O.T. 18 of 2014 by this common judgment and order.,,

F.M.A. 3352 of 2013 is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the ‘Act’) at the instance of an insurance",,

company (hereafter the insurer), questioning the award dated 21st May, 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track 1st Court,",,

Barasat, North 24-Parganas on an application under section 166 thereof, registered as M.A.C. Case No. 508 of 2011.",,

How long a driving license (issued by the appropriate licensing authority) in favour of an individual to drive a non-transport vehicle in terms of the,,

Act remains effective, is the sole question of law that arises for decision in the appeal in the factual background as discussed hereafter.",,

Bibhas Sarkar @ Kala (hereafter the ‘victim’) died in a motor vehicular accident on2nd May, 2011. The tribunal was approached by the",,

heirs of the victim with a claim application impleading the owner of the offending vehicle (a lorry) and its insurer as opposite parties 1 and 2,",,

respectively. The owner duly proved that the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy of the insurer. The insurer denied liability on the,,

ground that the offending vehicle was being driven by Narayan Chandra Deb (hereafter Narayan), whose license had expired as on 2nd May, 2011.",,

The insurer proved that Narayan was issued a driving license, the period of validity of which was from 21st April, 2008 to 20th April, 2011 (the license",,

having later been renewed and its validity extended from 30th November, 2012 to 29th November, 2015). Since the accident took place on 2nd May,",,

2011, when Narayan did not have a valid driving license, it was the contention of the insurer that the owner ought to be held liable to bear",,

compensation payable to the claimants. The tribunal did not agree with such a contention and held the insurer liable to pay compensation to the,,

claimants.,,

Appearing for the insurer-appellant, Mr. Das, learned advocate has urged us todecide the question of law in favour of the insurer-appellant and",,

thereby divest it of the liability to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal to the claimants.,,

In that view of the matter, we need not discuss the evidence in detail as to howthe accident occurred. Also, it is an undisputed fact that driving of",,

the offending vehicle rashly and negligently by Narayan resulted in the death of the victim. The question that has been formulated above is required to,,

be answered bearing in mind the provisions of the Act. The tribunal has referred to section 14 of the Act to hold the insurer liable. We are, thus, called",,

upon to decide whether the tribunal was right in its interpretation of such provision.,,

For facility of reference, section 14 is quoted below :-",,

“Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.â€"(1) A learner’s licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act,",,

be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence.,,

(2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,â€"",,

(a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years:",,

Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year,,

and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and] (b) in the case,,

of any other licence,â€"",,

(i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case",,

may be, renewal thereof,â€"",,

(A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of suchissue or renewal; or,,

(B) until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years,whichever is earlier;",,

(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be",,

effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal:",,

Provided that every driving licence shall; notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from",,

such expiry.â€​,,

It is clear on a perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 14 that a license to drive atransport vehicle would be effective for a period of three years. Mr.,,

Das has, while assailing the impugned award, drawn sustenance therefrom. However, this contention raised by Mr. Das overlooks the proviso at the",,

foot of section 14. Having provided that notwithstanding its expiry under sub-section (2) every driving license shall continue to be effective for a period,,

of thirty days from such expiry, it leads one to the unshakable conclusion that although in terms of clause (a) of sub-section (2), section 14 of the Act",,

the license would be effective for a period of three years, it would continue to remain effective for a further period of thirty days from such expiry.",,

This, in our considered view, is the only possible outcome of a plain and literal interpretation of the law.",,

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, the Supreme Court has ruled that the proviso appended to section",,

14 in unequivocal terms states that the license remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry. Upon interpretation of section 15, it",,

was also laid down as follows:,,

“46. Section 15 of the Act does not empower the authorities to reject an application for renewal only on the ground that there is a break in validity,,

or tenure of the driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantime the provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23",,

and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he cannot",,

be said to be delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry.â€​,,

The question of law arising for decision on the appeal is, thus, answered.",,

It is now time to apply the law to the facts of the case. It cannot be doubted thatthe driving license issued in favour of Narayan was effective for a,,

period of three years [from 21st April, 2008 till 20th April, 2011 as per clause (a) of sub-section",,

Sl No.,Heads,Calculation

i.,Notional yearly income,"Rs.4,18,197/-

ii,"Less 1/3rd on account of personal

and living expenses","Less Rs.1,39399/- = Rs.2,78,798/-

Iii,Multiplier of 13 applied,"Rs.36,24,374/-

Iv,Add 25% future prospect,"Rs.9,06,093.50, Rounded off to Rs.

9,06,093/-

v,Loss of consortium,"Rs.48,800/-

vi,"Loss of estate and funeral

expenses","Rs.36,300/-

Total compensation,,"Rs.46,15,567/-

insurerappellant, over and above what it has secured while complying with the interim order dated 13th August, 2013, shall be deposited by it with the",,

Registrar General within two months from date positively.,,

It is made very clear that the widow of the victim shall be exclusively entitled to Rs.48,800/- on account of loss of consortium. The balance sum of",,

Rs.46,15,567/- shall be equally shared by the appellants 1, 2 and along with proportionate share of interest. In addition, the interest accrued on the sum",,

secured by the insurer-appellant shall be equally shared by the heirs of the victim.,,

Separate cheques shall be issued by the Registrar General in favour of thewidow and the mother of the victim in accordance with the terms,,

contained hereinabove, preferably within 30th September, 2018, if an approach is made in this behalf.",,

The cross-objection stands disposed of along with CAN 3165 of 2017, without anyorder for costs.",,