Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 117 (RAJ)

Laxman Singh v. Patram

2004-01-22

PRAKASH TATIA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is by the owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident for which the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anupgarh (Sri Ganganagar) (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') passed the award on 4th Feb., 2003. 3. The only point involved in this controversy is that whether the learned Tribunal committed illegality in exonerating the insurance Company from making the payment of the award amount on the ground that on the to of accident, the driver Bhanwar Singh was not holding the valid driving licence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driving licence of the driver Bhanwar Singh expired on 17th Oct., 1998 and it was renewed on 12th Nov., 1998 in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Section 15 itself provides that in case of renewal of the licence, the renewal will relate back from the date of expiry of the licence. Therefore, for all purposes the driver was holding the licence including for intervening period, i.e., 17th Oct., 1998 and 12th Nov., 1998. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that it is proved fact that on the fateful day, which is 7th Nov' 1998, the driver Bhanwar Singh was not holding the valid driving licence. It is submitted that even if, the renewal of licence be treated effective from the date of expiry of initially issued licence, then that will not make the respondent Insurance Company liable in view of the conditions given in the Insurance Policy, which provides that the Insurance company shall not be liable to reimburse the insured, in case the accident is caused by the person having no valid driving licence at the time of accident. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance Company submits that Sub-section 5 of the Section 147 also specifically provides non-obstante clause and by virtue of this, the application of Section 15 of the Act of 1988 shall stand excluded and the terms and conditions of insurance policy shall prevail. According to learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, Sub-section 5 of the Section 147 specifically provides that the insurer shall be liable to indemnify the person insured in the policy in respect of any liability, which the policy purports to cover. According to learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, Sub-section 5 of the Section 147 specifically provides that the insurer shall be liable to indemnify the person insured in the policy in respect of any liability, which the policy purports to cover. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the policy contained a specific condition about the licence and that shall prevail. 7. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, the driver Bhanwar Singh had valid driving licence on 17th Oct., 1998. The driver Bhanwar Singh was entitled to have a grace period of one month so that he may get renewal of his licence under Section 15 of the Act of 1988. Sub-section 1 of the Section 15 of the Act of 1988, if makes it absolutely clear that in case, any application is submitted for renewal of the licence within a period of 30 days after the date of expiry of the licence, the licensing authority shall renew the licence and the renewal will be from the date of expiry of the licence. As per proviso to Section 15 of the Act of 1988, in case the application for renewal of the licence is submitted after the expiry of the 30 days, then only renewal of licence will be from the date of renewal of licence. Therefore, the driver Bhanwar Singh had valid driving even after 17th Oct., 1998 and thereafter, till the validity of the renewed licence without any break. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 7th Nov., 1998 and on that day by virtue of Section 1 of the Section 15, the licence stand renewed and valid in the hands of the driver Bhanwar Singh. 8. Sub-section 5 of the Section 147 deals with the liability of the insurer and it starts with non-obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in s any law". It provides that the insurance shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover. Sub-section 5 of the Section 147, no where deals or permits the insurer to avoid the statutory provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1988. It provides that the insurance shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover. Sub-section 5 of the Section 147, no where deals or permits the insurer to avoid the statutory provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1988. Sub-section 5 of the section 147 deals with to only a subject relating to the person and classes of the persons for whom the insurer undertook to indemnify and who are insured in the policy or excluded in the policy. It has no relevance with the validity of the licence nor it permits exclusion of the Section 15 by private contract between the insurance Company and insured. 9. In view of the above discussions, it is held that the driver Bhanwar Singh had valid driving licence on the date when the accident occurred and the learned Tribunal committed illegality in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability of the insured. 10. The appeal of the appellant is, therefore, allowed. The rejection of the award against the respondent No. 5 Insurance Company is set aside. It is held that the claimants are entitled to recover the said amount from the Insurance Company, i.e., respondent No. 5 (except the amount, which they have received from the appellant). If any amount has been paid by the appellant to the claimants in this claim case, the respondent Insurance Company shall reimburse the said amount to the appellant. No order as to cost.Appeal Allowed - Insurer Made Liable. *******