Shyam Singh vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.

THIS appeal is by the complainant Shyam Singh challenging order of District Forum, Sangrur dated August 6, 1996 whereby complaint was dismissed.

BROAD facts are not in dispute and they can be summarised. Shyam Singh procured Insurance Policy during the year 1989 90 from the Opposite Party New India Assurance Company Limited in respect of his truck. Subsequently, the aforesaid truck was involved in an accident on December 10,1989 resulting in causing injuries to one Jangir Singh, who ultimately died on December 11, 1989. Police was informed. Post mortem on the dead body was conducted. Intimation of the accident was given to the Insurance Company with whom a claim was lodged for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ , given to Gurdial Singh through cheque, who was legal representative of Jangir Singh deceased. The aforesaid amount was given on account of ''no fault liability'', i.e. without going into the question of negligence of the driver. Since the Insurance Company did not settle the claim, the complaint was filed. The Opposite Party contested the complaint denying its liability to pay the amount. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents. The District Forum on going through the same held that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence and the liability could not be fastened on the Insurance Company, who collected the material that no such driving licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Cuttack in favour of Chamkar Singh, driver. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant/complainant that it was not necessary for the Insurance Company to collect material or to deny its legal liability to reimburse the complain ant, who was duty bound to pay the minimum amount fixed under the Statute to be paid to the L.Rs. of the deceased, who was involved in the motor vehicle accident. This contention is de void of merit. Ex. R 5 is the Insurance Policy obtained by the complainant in this case. It pro vides that any person was entitled to drive who was holding valid driving licence. Section II of the policy provides liability to the third party in case of death and Sub clause (b) on which reliance has been placed, which is exclusion clause, reads as under: "(b) Except so far as necessary to meet the requirements of Section 92 A and Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment."

Section 92 A of the old Motor Vehicles Act and substitute of which is Section 140 of the New Act of course provides for minimum com pensation to be allowed in the case of ''no fault liability'', which is an exception to the exclusion clause. But from that it cannot be gathered that the general condition that the person driving vehicle must possess a valid driving licence to fasten liability on the Insurance Company is to be given go bye. May be under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act liability is of the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident even without proof of negligence of the driver or that he was not possessing any valid driving licence, however, the liability of the Insurance Company is to be determined on the terms and conditions of the policy. In the present case, the terms and conditions of the policy provide that the person-driving vehicle must possess a valid driving licence.

THE question as to whether the driver of the truck was possessing a valid driving licence, Ex. R3 was produced which is a photocopy of the driving licence of Chamkar Singh. This licence number is C/56419/CTR/87. This licence purports to have been issued by the Licensing Au thority, Cuttack. Ex. R 8 is the report of the Licensing Authority, Cuttack that the aforesaid licence was not issued to anybody from that office. This report was forwarded to the Insur ance Company by Sh. G.P. Dutta, Advocate, Orissa High Court, Cuttack vide its letter Ex. R7. THE affidavit of Charanjit Sineh, Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company, was produced in this respect. No evidence was produced on behalf of the complainant to rebut this evidence. In complainant''s affidavit it was only mentioned that he employed the aforesaid driver after verification that he was not challenged by any Trans port Authority. That can hardly be treated as evidence to rebut the report of the Licensing Authority, Cuttack. Since it has been held that Chamkar Singh was not possessing a valid driving licence, the liability on the Insurance Company can be not be fastened. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.