Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 698 (JHR)

Dilip Singh v. Mosomat Dulari

2004-07-14

M.Y.EQBAL, VISHNUDEO NARAYAN

body2004
ORDER 1. This appeal at the Instance of the owner of the vehicle is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.1.2003 passed by Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Sahebganj in Title (C) Suit No. 1/98 whereby he has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- and directed the appellant-owner of the vehicle to pay the said amount. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. 3. On 5.11.1997 the elder son of the respondent-claimant Shambhu Choudhary while pulling his rickshaw on the main road was dashed by. the truck bearing registration No. BHJ-7022. It was alleged that the said truck was driven rashly and negligently and as such the accident took place resulting the death of the deceased. The appellant appeared and filed written statement stating inter alia that the vehicle was insured by a valid policy of Insurance. However National Insurance Company denied the fact that the truck was being driven-rashly and negligently. The opposite party Insurance Company contested the case stating inter alia that on the relevant date of accident the driver driving the truck was not having a valid driving licence and also that the vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company. 4. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration. 1. Is the Case as framed maintainable? 2. Whether the deceased Shambhu Chaudhary died due to his own negligence or due to the rash driving of the driver of the vehicle No. BHJ-7022. 3. Had the driver a valid driving licence. 4. Was Truck No. BHJ-7022 insured on the date of the accident. 5. Is the claimant entitled to get compensation? If so, by whom and to what extent. 5. While deciding issue No. 3 whether the driver has a valid driving licence, the Tribunal recorded a finding on the basis of exhibit A, the driving licence, that the driving licence was valid from 24.12.1999 to 23.12.2002. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of alleged accident but the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. We have also perused the evidence and the exhibits to find out the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the driving licence. 7. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. We have also perused the evidence and the exhibits to find out the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the driving licence. 7. The owner of the vehicle examined himself as O.P. No. 1. He has deposed that on the date of occurrence the driver Md. Munir was having a valid driving licence and he is a very good driver. He also produced the certificate relating to the driving licence of the driver. The driving licence, Tax token and Road permit were marked as exhibits A, B and C respectively. The Insurance Company also examined one witness namely Rajendra Thakur as PW 1(NIC). He has stated in his evidence that the driver was granted driving licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle. He was granted licence for driving the heavy Motor Vehicle w.e.f. 24.12.1999. In this regard he has proved the certificate issued by the District Transport Officer marked as exhibit A-1. From perusal of the driving licence it appears that the licence was issued in the year 1996 being BLC No. 2119/96. There is an endorsement In the licence whereby the driver was allowed to drive Heavy Motor Vehicle w.e.f. 12.1.2000. Another certificate issued by the DTO which is on the record shows that in 1996 the driver was allowed to drive Light Motor Vehicle and Heavy Motor Vehicle. 8. The Insurance Company in the main written statement did not take a defence that the owner of the vehicle knowing fully well that the driver had no valid driving licence entrusted the vehicle to the driver to drive the vehicle on the road nor is the case of the Insurance Company that he had no knowledge about the fact that the driver driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence. On the contrary the admitted fact is that the licence was issued to the driver in the year 1996 to drive the Motor Vehicles. From different endorsement made in the driving licence it is not crystal clear that the driver was allowed to drive Heavy Motor Vehicles only from 1999. 9. Be that as it may. The deceased was not aware of the fact that the driver by whose negligence he will be crushed had no valid driving licence. From different endorsement made in the driving licence it is not crystal clear that the driver was allowed to drive Heavy Motor Vehicles only from 1999. 9. Be that as it may. The deceased was not aware of the fact that the driver by whose negligence he will be crushed had no valid driving licence. In that view of the matter the Insurance Company cannot disown the liability for payment of compensation on the technical grounds that the driver had no valid driving licence. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of White v. White and anr, (2001 Vol II All England Report 43). The law in this regard has also been well settled by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions and the controversy set at rest by laying down the law that when the owner has not deliberately entrusted the vehicle to a person who has no valid driving licence then in that case the Insurance Company cannot dis-own its liability and that too when the said fact is not proved by cogent evidence. Besides the above even assuming that the driver had no valid driving licence to drive Heavy Motor vehicles, the Insurance Company is bound to pay the amount and proceed against the owner of the vehicle for the recovery of the amount. In that view of the matter, in our opinion the Tribunal has committed grave error of law in holding that the driver had No valid driving licence at all and the licence was granted only in the year 1999. The finding recorded by the Tribunal therefore, cannot be sustained in law. We, therefore, hold that the respondent insurance Company cannot dis-own its liability for payment of compensation so awarded by the Tribunal. 10. We. therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 3. Consequently the judgment and award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid by the Company. Consequently the judgment and award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid by the Company. Hence we direct the Insurance Company to pay the remaining amount of compensation to the claimant respondent by tendering the cheque on 1st August, 2004 before the Lok Adalat schedule to be held on that date.