Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 202 (UTT)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chandra Mohan

2004-08-26

RAJESH TANDON

body2004
JUDGMENT Rajesh Tondon, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By the present appeal the applicant has prayed for quashing the award dated 28.2.2002 awarding a sum of Rs. one lac against the Oriental Insurance Company. 3. Briefly stated on 18th October, 1995 deceased Vinay Kumar along with his brother Inder Mohan after completing the professional work reached Sonu Paultry Farm situated at Ram Nagar road by motor cycle and was returning to Kashipur; in the meantime the petrol in the motor cycle was finished. The motor cycle was given to Vinay Kumar in the meantime at about 1.15 p.m., when he reached railway crossing, Ram Nagar road, the tractor trolley No. U.P. 02/3858 was coming rashly and negligently as a result of which the tractor trolley dashed Vinay Kumar resulting his death on the spot. Inder Mohan thereafter lodged the report. 4. The deceased was a student of High School in Govind Ballabh Pant Inter College and was doing the business of selling the eggs and was earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The owner of the tractor trolley was examined. The Claims Tribunal has framed five issues. Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were decided together. Inder Mohan was examined as P.W. 2. The Tribunal has recorded a finding in favour of the claimant by holding that the accident, was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The Insurance Company has submitted that the driver was not authorised to drive the vehicle, as he has no valid licence. 5. A finding has been recorded that the driver has a valid licence. The driving licence was issued from Moradabad Roadways and, therefore, the finding has been concluded that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid licence at the time when the accident had taken place. 6. It has come in the evidence that the deceased was a student of class 10th aged about 18 years and was earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month and as such the compensation of Rs. one lac has been rightly awarded. 7. The Apex Court in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. , has held as under: 110. 2,000/- per month and as such the compensation of Rs. one lac has been rightly awarded. 7. The Apex Court in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. , has held as under: 110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in, Sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured of the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy, condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in Sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the Insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.