Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 432 (RAJ)

Central Store Officer v. Avinash Rani

2004-03-19

H.R.PANWAR

body2004
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Both these appeals are directed against the Judgment and award dated 24th August, 1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’ hereinafter referred to) whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,31,500/-against the appellants and respondent No. 5 Monir Khan and respondent No. 7 New India Assurance Company and Rs. 1,31,500/-against respondent No. 6 Prathviraj and respondent No. 8 National Insurance Company. 2. Aggrieved by the Judgment and award impugned the appellants Central Store Officer and another as well as the National Insurance Company have preferred afore noticed two appeals. In Appeal No. 169/2000 filed by the Central Store Officer and another, it is stated by learned Counsel for the parties that the appellant and respondent No. 7 New India Assurance Company were made liable jointly and severally. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. R.K. Mehta appearing for respondent No. 7 the New India Insurance Company Limited submits that the Insurance Company is not aggrieved by the award to the extent that it was held liable, therefore, the Insurance Company has already satisfied the award impugned passed against it and paid the compensation to the claimants. 4. In this view of the matter the appellant now cannot be said to be aggrieved by the award which has already been satisfied by its insurer i.e., respondent No. 7. Even otherwise, on merit also the appellant has no case. Deceased Satish Kumar was 40 years of the age. His monthly income was Rs. 2,000/-. He was by profession a driver. The Tribunal determined the annual income of the deceased Rs. 24,000/-, deducting therefrom 1/3rd of the income as his personal living expenses, and annual dependency was determined to Rs. 16,000/- which was multiplied by multiplier of 16 years purchase factor. Thus, the amount works out to Rs. 2,56,000/-, to which a sum of Rs. 10,000/-was added for loss of love, affection and consortium and Rs. 5,000/-for funeral expenses etc., were awarded. Thus, total compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal is Rs. 2,63,000/-. The compensation assessed/awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side. Under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the Central Store Officer and another has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 5. So far as the Appeal No. 120/2000 filed by the National Insurance Company Limited is concerned, it was contended by learned Counsel Mr. 2,63,000/-. The compensation assessed/awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side. Under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the Central Store Officer and another has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 5. So far as the Appeal No. 120/2000 filed by the National Insurance Company Limited is concerned, it was contended by learned Counsel Mr. Jagdish Vyas appearing for the Insurance Company that the jeep driver had only learners licence and as such is not a valid licence. 6. This controversy stands concluded by the three Judges Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh & Ors., 2004 AIR SCW 663, wherein the Apex Court held that learner’s license is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It cannot, therefore, be said that a vehicle when being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not duly licensed resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner’s license is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be drivern by a person holding a learner’s license, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others (Supra), the appeal filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. does not survive. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in both the appeals. Accordingly, they fail and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.