The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhawani Devi @ Bhagvani Devi and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the New India Assurance Co. Limited, the insurer against the award dated

19.10.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short ''the Tribunal''). Vide the impugned award, the claim

petition brought by Bhawani Devi alias Bhagvani Devi u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') on the death of Lachhman

Vind in a road side accident that took place on 06.03.2009 has been allowed in a sum of Rs. 2,03,000/-. Since the challenge in this appeal by the

insurer is to the finding of learned Tribunal on the validity of the driving licence of respondent No. 1, the facts in detail are not required to be

noticed.

On 06.03.2009 respondent No. 1 Balwinder Singh @ Juj, the driver was driving a mini bus bearing registration No. B29E-9641 and the

accident has been caused on account of the rash and negligent driving thereof. Respondent No. 1 was holding a driving licence authorizing him to

drive scooter, car, tractor and LMV only.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Dalip Kumar, Junior Assistant, RW-1 has although stated that there was endorsement on

the driving licence authorizing respondent No. 1 to drive a heavy motor vehicle, yet the endorsement was dated 12.03.2009 while the accident

occurred on 06.03.2009 and, therefore, respondent No. 1 was not authorized to drive the mini bus and hence it is amply proved that the insured

by handing over the vehicle to Balwinder Singh alias Juj, respondent No. 1 has committed violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance

policy.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 has submitted, on the other hand, that the endorsement was although of 12.3.2009 yet it has not

come on the record that the mini bus driven by respondent no. 1 was a heavy motor vehicle. According to him, the mini bus is not defined in the

Motor Vehicles Act and it is covered by the definition of light motor vehicle itself.

A light motor vehicle for driving which respondent no. 1 was authorized by way of his licence is defined in section 2(21) of the Act. It is said to

mean a transport vehicle or omni bus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any

of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. Though I will not say that the word omni bus finding place in the aforesaid definition covers the mini bus, yet

the onus still was on the insurer to prove that the gross vehicle weight of the mini bus was exceeding 7500 kgs. The appellant has not led any

evidence in this regard. Therefore, the appellant fails to prove that the mini bus which respondent no. 1 was driving at the time of the accident did

not fall within the definition of LMV and respondent no. 1 was not authorized to drive it.

In these circumstances, the appellant is clearly shown to have failed to prove that Balwinder Singh alias Juj, respondent no. 1 has not been

authorized to drive the vehicle in question on the date of the accident. Hence, the appellant fails to prove that there has been any violation of the

terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the insured. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed.