United India Insurance Co Ltd @APPELLANT@Hash Om Prakash

This Civil Misc. Appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been filed against the judgment & award dated 21.12.2000 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra in Civil Misc. Case No.146/1998.

Briefly stated, facts giving rise to present appeal are that on 19.11.1995 at 1:35PM non-appellant No.1 Om Prakash was coming back from F.C.I.

godown after delivering meal to his father. At that time, a Tampo Taxi No.RJ-19-C-5034 came very fast from Balotra side and hit respondent Om

Prakash. He fell down far from road and got injured. He was taken to Balotra hospital by the same tempo-taxi and got medical treatment. An FIR

was lodged regarding the accident for offence under secs.279, 337 & 338 IPC.

A claim petition was filed by respondent Om Prakash through his natural guardian Balwanta Ram before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Balotra. By way of the claim petition, it was alleged that the tempo driver was driving the tempo-taxi rashly & negligently and therefore, the accident

took place. The injured Om Prakash was an earning member of his family, hence claim petition was filed for compensation to the tune of Rs.48,000/-.

Notices were issued by the learned Tribunal. The respondents No.1 and 2 by way of filing reply pleaded ignorance regarding facts of the claim

petition. The respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd in its written statement stated that the insured person has neither intimated the

insurance company regarding the accident nor documents have been presented before the insurance company and therefore, liability of the insurance

company is automatically over. It was also stated by the insurance company that the driver was not holding valid license at the time of the accident, so

very important term of the insurance has not been satisfied and the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. The insurance

company also pleaded that the claimant himself was responsible for the accident. The insurance company demanded protection under secs.147 & 149

of the Motor Vehicles Act.

After hearing both the parties, while discussing the evidence produced by rival parties, the learned Tribunal passed award in favour of the claimant

and the respondents No.2 & 3 along with the appellant insurance company were held jointly & severally liable for the payment of compensation to the

tune of Rs.32,330/-. The amount of compensation was ordered to be paid within two months with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of

the claim petition i.e. 12.01.1998.

Aggrieved with the award dated 21.12.2000, the appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal on various grounds. It is contended that in the

insurance policy, it was clearly mentioned regarding person or class of persons entitled to drive viz. any person including insured, provided that a

person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided

also that the person holding an effective learner’s license may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfied the requirements of rule 3 of the

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

It is contended that the insured has accepted the insurance with the above mentioned clear terms of the contract. It has also been proved at the time

of arguments on the claim petition that the driver was not holding effective driving license at the time of the accident but the Tribunal has not

considered this important aspect and passed impugned award in favour of the claimant. Therefore, the award impugned has become erroneous and is

liable to be set aside.

It was further contended that the learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that the non-appellant has not produced any document regarding his

income or age. When the claimant has not given any income proof then how the learned Tribunal has accepted loss of income to the claimant

arbitrarily. The learned Tribunal has considered all the facts exactly what the nonappellant (claimant) has given in his claim petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and contended that the respondent

No.2 Hanumana Ram was having driving license from 1987 and that was renewed from time to time and presently it is ending upto year 2001 and

therefore, he was having valid driving license. Learned Tribunal has considered all the facts and there is no breach of conditions of the contract of

insurance. So far as grant of amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal has considered all the evidence on record so far as age and

the income of the claimant are concerned and after considering all the material evidence, has passed the award for compensation.

Having considered rival submissions of the parties and significant relevant evidence placed on record.

Learned Tribunal has considered the objection of valid driving license while deciding issue No.3. In this connection, NAW1 Hanumana Ram in his

examination-in-chief stated that his driving license was issued on 19.02.1987, which was renewed on 01.06.1992 to 31.05.1995, thereafter it was

renewed from 29.11.1995 to 28.11.1998 and it was further renewed from 27.11.1998 to 28.11.2001. The original license was exhibited as A2 and

photocopy of the license was exhibited as A2-A. It was further stated that during 31.05.1995 to 29.11.1995, the license was deposited with the office

of RTO, Jodhpur for renewal. The license was not renewed on the date of the accident but it was pending for renewal, for which the original license

was deposited with the office of RTO, Jodhpur.

On perusal of the original license, it was found that the license is presently renewed up to 03.08.2001. The original period of the license expired on

31.05.1995. Later on, it was renewed from 29.11.1995 up to 28.11.1998 and presently renewed up to year 2001. In this way, Hanumana Ram was

possessing a valid driving license. Hanumana Ram was not disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving license.

Thus, indisputably, Hanumana Ram was possessing driving license from 1987, which was renewed from time to time and on the date of occurrence of

the accident, it was pending renewal, which was later on renewed by the RTO. Meaning thereby, Hanumana Ram was deemed to be having valid

license from the year 1987. The learned Tribunal has committed no illegality in deciding issue No.3.

The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on judgment dated 28.05.2012 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1024/2001 {National Insurance

Company v. LRs of Laxman Singh}. Having perused judgment dated 28.05.2012, I find said judgment altogether distinguished on material facts. The

judgment in aforesaid SBCMA No.1024/2001, therefore, is of no help to the appellant.

The learned Tribunal, while allowing the claim petition, has rightly assessed the compensation after considering statements of AW1, AW2 and AW3

and there is no ground for interference on issue No.2 decided by the learned Tribunal.

In view of above discussion, I find no substance in the appeal. The same is dismissed.