Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1105 (PNJ)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha Devi

2003-08-12

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2003
ORDER Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal has been preferred against award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In their claim, the respondents alleged that Amar Singh, deceased, died on account of being hit by Truck No. CH01N-3710 on 26.9.1995 at 5 PM while going on a cycle. Case of the respondents was that the truck was being rashly and negligently driven by Madan Lal. The deceased was 45 years of age at the time of death and was employed with the Haryana Government at a salary of Rs. 2772/- per month. The vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance Company and was owned by Harnek Singh. 2. After holding the Amar Singh died as a result of rash and negligent driving by Madan Lal driver, the Tribunal awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 3,00,700/- with interest at the rate of 12% PA. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the driver was having a fake driving licences and, therefore, the insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. It was submitted that RW-3 Kishan Singh, Steno of the office of the District Transport Officer, Amritsar, stated that original licence Ex.RW/1 was not issued from their office. 4. The Tribunal observed that though the Insurance Company challenged the validity of licence issued by the Transport Office, Amritsar, driving licence renewed by the Una District Transport Authority was not challenged. The Tribunal further held that owner of the truck, Harnek Singh bona fide believed that the driver had a valid licence, which licence had been duly renewed by the competent authority. It was, thus, held that the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the Insurance Company is required to pay the claim, it should be held entitled to recover the same from the owner. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submitted that once there was valid renewal of licence, liability was of the Insurance Company and question whether Insurance Company will recover the compensation from the owner could, if at all arise only when licence was not valid. Since in the present cases, renewal of the licence as genuine, it could not be held that the Insurance Company could be absolved of its liability. 7. Since in the present cases, renewal of the licence as genuine, it could not be held that the Insurance Company could be absolved of its liability. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. 8. Statutory provision of liability of Insurance Company is intended to protect user of a road against risk arising from the use of the road. There is a statutory requirement of having insurance of a vehicle. Idea is that any injured victim or dependent of victim of a fatal accident is duly compensated. To avoid its liability, the insurer has to establish that the insured is guilty of infringement of requirement of a vehicle being driven by a licensed person. Such violation is required to be proved to be wilful violation. Insured cannot be held to be guilty of violation when he has done everything within his power to verify that the driver is duly licensed. The Apex Court has clearly held legal position to be so in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, 1987(2) SC 654. Reiterating the earlier law in United India Insurance Company v. Lehru, (2003) 3 SCC 338 the Apex Court held "we are, thus, in agreement with what is laid down in the aforementioned cases namely that in order to avoid liability, is not sufficient to show that the person driving at the time of accident was not duly licensed. The Insurance company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured." It was also observed that the owners cannot be expected to make enquiries from the RTOs whether a licence was valid or not and once the owner has satisfied himself that the driver had a licence, it cannot be held that there was any breach of insurance policy. 9. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.