Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 319 (HP)

GEETA DEVI v. SANJEEV CHAUHAN

2005-09-01

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2005
JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This case clearly shows the shocking state of affairs existing in the offices of the Registering and Licensing Authority who are issuing and renewing licences without following the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder or even the basic rules of common sense. 2. F.A.O. No. 158 of 1999 has been filed by the insurance company against the award of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (Urban) (SDM, Urban), Shimla (for short 'the Commissioner'), decided on 8.12.1998. The claimants have filed F.A.O. No. 98 of 1999 for enhancement of compensation. 3. The facts necessary for the decision of the case are that Geeta Devi and Balbir Singh being the parents of Ajit Singh filed a petition for grant of compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegations were that their son Ajit Singh was employed by Sanjeev Chauhan and Rajiv Chauhan as driver on the mini truck bearing No. HP-21 0407. Deceased met with an accident while driving the said truck. The owners of the truck did not deny the accident. They admitted the accident and also averred that they were paying a salary of Rs. 2,000 per month to the deceased. Insurance company took up the plea that the deceased did not have a valid driving licence and as such the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. 4. Commissioner assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 62.50 per day as per Himachal Pradesh Government notification fixing the minimum wages of a driver. Compensation of Rs. 2,07,534 was awarded against the insurance company. 5. The insurance company has basically raised the plea that the original driving licence in favour of deceased, Ajit Singh only permitted him to drive LMV (NTPT) which means light motor vehicle (non transport). According to Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Counsel for insurance company, the licence was absolutely clear and did not permit the driver to drive a transport vehicle. In fact an endorsement was obtained authorizing the driver to drive transport vehicle and the licence was endorsed for LTV by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Shimla, Sunni Sub-Division. The copy of the driving licence is on record which shows that the same was originally issued by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Barsar, Hamirpur for LMV (NTPT) only. Thereafter the endorsement was made at Shimla. 6. The copy of the driving licence is on record which shows that the same was originally issued by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Barsar, Hamirpur for LMV (NTPT) only. Thereafter the endorsement was made at Shimla. 6. Rajiv Chauhan, RW 1, has stated that the vehicle in question is comprehensively insured with the insurance company. According to this witness he and his father had seen the driving licence of the driver when the driver was employed. He also states that the original driving licence was handed over to the insurance company in the year 1996, but still the company did not pay the compensation. To similar effect is the statement of Gian Singh, RW 2, father of the owners of the vehicle. The insurance company examined Lalita Chauhan, RW 3, licensing clerk from Registering and Licensing Authority (Rural), Shimla, who stated that driving licence No. 520 of 1993 of Ajit Singh had been endorsed at Sr. No. 194 SS 97 on 28.2.1997 for LTV (light transport vehicle). In cross-examination she has shown her ignorance as to how this endorsement has been made. The accident had occurred and the deceased died on 18.9.1996. The licence has been endorsed for driving transport vehicle on 28.2.1997, i.e., after the death of Ajit Singh. Therefore, on 11.7.2005 this Court had passed the following Order in F.A.O. No. 98 of 1999: On going through the record, it is found that Ajit Singh, son of Balbir Singh and resident of Village and Post Office, Maharal, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, had died in an accident on 17.9.1996. From the statement of licence clerk from the office of Registering and Licensing Authority (Rural), Shimla, it appears that his driving licence was endorsed for driving light motor transport vehicle on 28.2.1997 at Sr. No. 194, SS-97. This shows gross negligence on the part of the office of the RLA Rural), Shimla. He was even not aware of the basic principles of law. How could the driving licence of a dead person be endorsed? The RLA (Rural), Shimla shall appear in person in this Court on 4.8.2005 to explain the position. The person who was holding the charge of RLA (Rural), Shimla on 28.2.1997 shall also appear in person on the said date. The present incumbent holding the post of RLA (Rural), Shimla shall convey the orders of this Court to the person who was holding the post on 28.2.1997. The person who was holding the charge of RLA (Rural), Shimla on 28.2.1997 shall also appear in person on the said date. The present incumbent holding the post of RLA (Rural), Shimla shall convey the orders of this Court to the person who was holding the post on 28.2.1997. The Registry is directed to immediately send notice to SDM (Rural), Shimla so as to reach him within two days along with two copies of the Order so that he can forward one copy of the Order to the incumbent holding the post in the year 1997. List on 4.8.2005. 7. On 4.8.2005 H.S. Thakur, who was the then RLA (Rural), Shimla and O.P. Kant, RLA (Rural), Shimla were present in person. They clearly admitted that the said licence could not have been endorsed to drive transport vehicle on 28.2.1997 after the death of the driver. However, to make the position clear I had directed that the entire record with regard to the endorsement be produced on 29.8.2005. This record has been produced. It makes startling reading. On 28.2.1997 a sum of Rs. 45 is supposed to be deposited on behalf of Ajit Singh vide receipt No. 774979, dated 28.2.1997 in payment of driving licence endorsement. On the same day an application for endorsement is purported to have been made by Ajit Singh. The name of the applicant is mentioned as Ajit Singh, son of Balbir Singh. No identification marks are mentioned. Column Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 read as follows: (9) Have you previously held driving licence if so, give details.... (10) Particulars and date of every conviction on which has been ordered to be endorsed on any licence held by the applicant.... (11) Have you been disqualified for obtaining licence to drive? If so for what reason?... (12) Have you been subjected to a driving test as to your fitness or ability to drive a vehicle in respect of which a licence to drive is applied for? If so, give the following details: Date of test Testing authority Result 1. 2. 3. 8. These columns have been left blank by the applicant. The place for photograph is also left blank. Column Nos. 14 and 15 which are relevant and read as follows have been left blank. (14) I enclosed the learner's licence No..., dated ..., issued by Licensing Authority.... (15) I enclosed the Driving Certificate No. ....dated...issued by.... 2. 3. 8. These columns have been left blank by the applicant. The place for photograph is also left blank. Column Nos. 14 and 15 which are relevant and read as follows have been left blank. (14) I enclosed the learner's licence No..., dated ..., issued by Licensing Authority.... (15) I enclosed the Driving Certificate No. ....dated...issued by.... 9. The application bears no date and appears to be signed by one Balbir Singh. Below the application is a certificate of test of competence to drive. This has also been left blank and has not been filled up. 10. From the above facts it is crystal clear that the application in question was admittedly not signed by Ajit Singh. The same did not bear his photograph. No medical certificate was filed in support of the application. No details of any learner's licence held for transport vehicle were given. In fact no details of any licence previously held were given in the application. Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows: 7. Restrictions on the granting of learner's licences for certain vehicles. (1) No person shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year. (2) No person under the age of eighteen years shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a motor cycle without gear except with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the person desiring the learner's licence. 11. This clearly stipulates that a person can be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle only if he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year. Therefore, first a learner's licence has to be granted. Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that before granting a driving licence a test, as prescribed by the Central Government must be passed before a driving licence is issued. With regard to a transport vehicle, the conditions are more stringent and Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that even in case of renewal of licence to drive a transport vehicle the same should be accompanied by a medical certificate in the form prescribed. The application was not signed by Ajit Singh and was signed by one Balbir Singh, it was not filled in completely. The application was not signed by Ajit Singh and was signed by one Balbir Singh, it was not filled in completely. There was no photograph. No details of the previous licence were given. No medical certificate was filed along with the application and no test was held. Despite these shortcomings in the application the same was entertained and the licence was endorsed for LTV at Sr. No. 194. It is only in the register that the licence number of the old licence is mentioned. It is also surprising to note that the endorsement in the driving licence does not bear any date. All this clearly shows that driving licence was renewed in connivance with some official of the Registering and Licensing Authority, Shimla. The manner in which the licence has been endorsed for transport vehicle clearly indicates that there is much more than what meets the eye. The photocopy of the receipt, the application and the relevant page and entry of the register in question have been kept on the record of this case. 12. In my view there can be no escaping the fact that when the deceased was permitted to drive the vehicle, he did not have any licence to drive a transport vehicle. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., . In my opinion this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case admittedly the vehicle was being used as a goods vehicle at the time when the accident took place. It may be true that the vehicle in question was a light motor vehicle, but it was a transport vehicle and the driving licence specifically authorized the driver to drive a non transport light motor vehicle only. Mr. Rahul Mahajan also cited Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hazira Begum and Others, and Dobella Laxmi Narayana Vs. S. Ravi Kumar and Another, this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Suraj Parkash and Others, held that even in case of a Maruti van taxi which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, there must be an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. A single Judge of this Court in F.A.O. No. 255 of 1998, decided on 12.8.2005 has also again taken this view. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Suraj Parkash and Others, held that even in case of a Maruti van taxi which is admittedly a light motor vehicle, there must be an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. A single Judge of this Court in F.A.O. No. 255 of 1998, decided on 12.8.2005 has also again taken this view. Therefore, in my opinion the driving licence produced on record did not permit the driver to drive a transport motor vehicle and as such the insurance company was wrongly held liable to pay compensation. 13. Now coming to the appeal filed by the claimants. Their allegation was that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,400 per month and was also being paid daily allowance. The insured in reply stated that the salary of the deceased was only Rs. 2,000 per month. While appearing in the witness-box the employer has stated that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,000 and he was being paid Rs. 100 per day as daily allowance. Therefore, the Tribunal has gravely erred in taking the income at Rs. 62.50 per day. Tribunal has also misdirected itself in not awarding any interest. Claimants are entitled to interest as a matter of right. The matriculation certificate of the deceased has been placed on record which shows that his date of birth is 10.4.1974. The accident occurred on 18.9.1996. Therefore, the deceased was 22 years old at the time of the accident. The maximum wages of the deceased to be taken into consideration were Rs. 2,000 at the relevant time. 50 per cent, i.e., Rs. 1,000 has to be multiplied by relevant factor which is 221.37 and total compensation works out to Rs. 2,21,370. The claimants are also entitled to interest on this amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, w.e.f., 18.10.1996, i.e., one month after the date of accident till deposit or payment of the amount. The award of the Commissioner is, therefore, set aside and it is held that the owners, Sanjeev Chauhan and Rajiv Chauhan, who are liable to pay the amount of compensation along with interest, as aforesaid. The insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation or interest. 14. The award of the Commissioner is, therefore, set aside and it is held that the owners, Sanjeev Chauhan and Rajiv Chauhan, who are liable to pay the amount of compensation along with interest, as aforesaid. The insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation or interest. 14. Before parting with this case, I must observe that the manner in which the driving licence was endorsed for driving light transport vehicle much after the death of Ajit Singh shows that somebody in the office of the Registering and Licensing Authority (Rural), Shimla was hand in glove with somebody who wanted to get the endorsement for transport vehicle so that the liability could be fastened on the insurance company. Therefore, I direct that the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh shall get an inquiry conducted into the manner in which the Registering and Licensing Authority, Sunni, Shimla endorsed the driving licence of driver Ajit Singh after his death. After identifying the delinquent officials appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken against the persons who are found wanting in their duty and have mis-conducted themselves. This inquiry and the disciplinary proceedings should be conducted within a period of six months from today and thereafter report be sent to this Court on the action taken. List the matter after six months for this purpose. The Registry shall send a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for compliance of the directions given above. One copy of this judgment shall also be sent to the office of learned Advocate General for onward transmission. 15. Both the appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with costs assessed at Rs. 3,000 which shall be paid by owners to the claimants.