United India Insurance Company Limited vs Dhanveer Singh and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—This appeal has been instituted against Award dated 30.4.2015 rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan in MAC Petition No. 01-MAC/2 of 2012.

"Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation on account of death of their son Shubham Thakur, who was a student of 10+2. He was coming on his motor cycle No. HP-16-2506 from Marighat to Jaihar on 25.4.2010 and at about 5 pm, when he reached at Jaihar road near Marighat a Mahindra Pick-up No. HP-16A-0434 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side and in the process of overtaking another vehicle, hit the motor cycle. Shubham sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to the hospital. Accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 3, Shri Khushal Singh. FIR No. 30/2010 dated 25.4.2010 was registered at Police Station Pachhad. Deceased was earning Rs. 3000-4000 per month by doing dairy faming work. Claimants are the parents of the deceased.

Petition was contested by respondents No. 3 and 4 by filing reply. On merits, it was emphatically denied that the accident has taken place with the vehicle of the respondent. According to them, the respondents were falsely implicated in order to get undue compensation.

Appellant-insurance company also contested the petition. Stand of the insurance company before the Tribunal below was that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Respondent No. 5 is the owner of the motor cycle. According to him, amount claimed by the claimants was on the higher side. Respondent No. 6 is the insurer of the motor cycle. According to the reply filed by respondent No. 6, deceased was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence.

Issues were framed by the Tribunal below on 5.4.2013. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of petition and till the realisation of the amount. Respondents No. 4 and 5 alongwith appellant-insurance company were found liable, jointly and severally. However, since the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant, appellant-insurance company was directed to indemnify the award. Hence, this appeal.

Mr. Anil Tomar, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He also contended that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.

Accident has taken place on 25.4.2010. PW-1 Dhanveer Singh led evidence by filing affidavit Ext. PW-1/A. According to him, his son was coming on motor cycle from Marighat towards Jaiher. Accident took place with the vehicle coming from opposite side. During overtaking another vehicle it hit the motor cycle. Shubham sustained injuries and died on the way to the hospital.

PW-3 Huner Singh has corroborated the statement of PW-1.

RW-5 Mohan Sharma, Development Officer Administration has stated that they got investigation of accident done by investigator and according to them, vehicle No. HP-16A-0434 was not involved in the accident. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not done investigation himself and not examined the investigator.

Claimants have duly proved that the accident has taken place due to negligence of respondent No. 3. Deceased was 19 years of age. Post-mortem report is Ext. PW-1/B. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. A multiplier of 16 was applied. Total loss of dependency came to Rs. 3,84,000/-.

The offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company vide Ext. PW-2/C. Mr. Anil Tomar, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the Khushal Singh was only holding an LMV licence and it was valid from 29.8.2002 to 28.8.2022 and for driving commercial vehicle, LMV (Transport) driving licence was required as per the provisions of the Act.

This question is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon Tale Supreme Court in S. Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, , whereby it is held that merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer was not liable to pay compensation. Their lordships have held as under

[18] Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer''s right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and (iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence.

In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy.

[19] In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

The above judgment has been relied upon by Their lordships the Hon Tale Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., . There was no breach of the conditions of the insurance policy in the present case. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned Award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below.

In view of the discussion and analysis made herein above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.