Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 405 (GAU)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rodingliana

2005-05-25

AFTAB H.SAIKIA

body2005
JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. The judgment and award dated 1.12.2004 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the M.A.C.T.') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 66 of 2002 is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal preferred by the Insurance Company appellant having obtained permission in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') to contest the claim on all or any grounds available to the owner of the accident vehicle. 2. The facts briefly stated are that one Laikungi, the mother of the claimant, aged about 67 years sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 3.7.2002 at about 10 a.m. while proceeding towards her house at Berawlui of Zemabawk by taxi bearing registration No. MZ 1-A 1933 belonging to one Lalrinchhana, respondent No. 2, which was driven by one Lalramhluna possessing a valid driving licence (private) at the time of accident. The taxi involved in the accident rolled down near the Forest Check Gate while bypassing tank lorry bearing registration No. MZ-01 5799 which was parked at the side of the road. Deceased Laikungi was immediately shifted to the Civil Hospital at Aizawl where she succumbed to the injuries. Hence the claim petition was preferred by the respondent No. 1-claimant, the son of the deceased. 3. This claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company appellant stating, inter alia, that the income of the deceased which was stated to be Rs. 3,500 p.m. was not supported by any income certificate issued by the President of the village concerned and driver had not possessed any valid driving licence at the time of accident for which the claimant was not entitled to get any compensation as claimed by him. 4. The learned Member, M.A.C.T. on examination of the materials available on the record and on perusal of the relevant documents exhibited before him and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, awarded the amount of Rs. 1,92,000 as compensation with simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization of the whole amount. 5. 1,92,000 as compensation with simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization of the whole amount. 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, appellant preferred this appeal on the following grounds: (i) the driver had no valid licence at the time of occurrence of the accident; (ii) income of the deceased was not proved; and (iii) the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000 as conventional amount payable to claimant relying on a decision in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar : (2001) II LLJ 1559 SC (SC), was unwarranted. 6. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellant and also Mrs. Dawngliani, learned Counsel for claimant-respondent. 7. I have carefully perused the materials available on record especially the depositions of the claimant who examined himself as PW 1 and Piangthara, opposite party No. 2, who was appointed by the Insurance Company as an investigator. 8. As regards the valid driving licence of the concerned driver, it is admitted position that he was having a private driving licence for light motor vehicle (for short 'LMV') and as such, he cannot drive a taxi for which professional licence is required. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh : AIR 2004 SC 1531 , in para 82 categorically held that though a duty is cast on a driver to hold a valid driving licence for driving a particular type of vehicle which he intends to drive for which the Central Government was empowered to prescribe the forms of driving licences for different categories of vehicles in terms of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act respectively, if, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that accident occurred solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like the mechanical failure and similar other causes having no nexus with the possession of requisite type of licence possessed by the driver, the Insurance Company cannot escape the liability merely for such technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. Para 82 of the judgment may be extracted as under: Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Para 82 of the judgment may be extracted as under: Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe the forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in Sub-section (2) of said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are, (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (f) road-roller; and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are 'goods carriage', 'heavy goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motor vehicle', 'maxicab', 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor vehicle', 'motorcab', 'motorcycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle', "semi-trailer', 'tourist vehicle', 'tractor', 'trailer' and 'transport vehicle'. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for 'motor cycle without gear', for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where holder of driving licence for 'light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a 'maxicab', 'motorcab' or 'omnibus' for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the Claims Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but was found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. If on facts it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. In the instant case, it is explicitly evident from the evidence of opposite party No. 2 that the accident occurred due to the brake failure as per statement of the driver and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accident had any nexus with driver possessing requisite type of licence or not. Although the driver was admittedly not possessing the professional licence for driving the taxi, in view of the proposition of law laid down in Swaran Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the firm view that in view of the attending facts and circumstances of the case the appellant is solely liable. 9. Insofar as the monthly income of Rs. 3,500 of the deceased as assessed by learned M.A.C.T. is concerned, it appears from the pleadings and the depositions of the claimant PW 1 that the deceased was earning about Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 4,000 p.m. by selling vegetables in the market and accordingly this Court is of the view that there is no illegality and/or irregularity committed by learned Member, M.A.C.T. in assessing income at Rs. 3,500 p.m. 10. Now coming to the conventional amount so assessed by learned M.A.C.T., it is seen that the said amount was awarded by the Tribunal on the basis of the case already noticed above. In Lata Wadhwa's case (supra), Apex Court fixed the liability of conventional amount under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for the accidental fire in a V.I.P. Pandal which caused death and injuries to many persons present therein and the ratio of the same cannot be applicable to the instant case. Accordingly, the conventional amount is hereby modified to the extent of Rs. 10,000 only instead of Rs. 50,000. 11. In view of the above, this Court is disinclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and award save and except the conventional amount which is reduced to Rs. 10,000 as recorded above. 12. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 1,52,000 determined after deducting Rs. 40,000 from Rs. 50,000. 11. In view of the above, this Court is disinclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and award save and except the conventional amount which is reduced to Rs. 10,000 as recorded above. 12. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 1,52,000 determined after deducting Rs. 40,000 from Rs. 50,000 fixed under the head of conventional amount less the amount already deposited as the statutory amount or otherwise, Claimant h allowed to withdraw the amount so deposited with the Registry, Aizawl Bench on his identification by the concerned learned Counsel. 13. Accordingly, this appeal Is allowed with the modification to the extent as Indicated above.