Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 75 (HP)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANSHA RAM

2006-03-27

SURJIT SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J. - The present appeal, by the insurer, is directed against the dismissal of its plea by the Tribunal that the man, who was driving the offending vehicle, did not possess a valid driving licence and, hence, it (the appellant-Insurer) was not liable to pay the compensation, as also the order passed by the Tribunal that the offending vehicle being insured with the appellant, it (the appellant) is liable to pay the compensation. 2. Further, grievance of the appellant is that the petition for compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, itself was not maintainable in view of the failure of the claimant (injured) to prove the plea that the truck was being driven in a rash manner by respondent Gurmeet Singh, named as its driver. 3. Facts that need to be noticed for the appreciation of the aforesaid two contentions of the appellant are as follows. Respondent Mansha Ram was knocked down by a truck, owned by respondent Charan Singh. Mansha Ram filed a petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. He alleged that the truck was being driven by respondent Gurmeet Singh, a son of Charan Singh, the owner of the truck. He alleged that the truck was being driven in a rash or negligent manner and because of that he sustained the injuries. Admittedly, the truck was insured with the appellant for third party risk. 4. Charan Singh and Gurmeet Singh, respondents, filed a common written reply, in which it was alleged that the vehicle was being driven not by Gurmeet Singh but by Charan Singh, the owner of the truck. The present appellant, who was impleaded as respondent No. 3, in its capacity as insurer, took the plea that Gurmeet Singh, who, as per averments in the petition, was driving the truck, did not possess any driving licence and, hence, it was not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Learned Tribunal framed various issues on the pleadings of the parties. Evidence was led by the parties, including the present appellant, in support of their respective pleas. At the end of the trial, the learned Tribunal held that truck was being driven by Charan Singh in a rash or negligent manner and awarded a sum of Rs. 54,400/- by way of compensation. Evidence was led by the parties, including the present appellant, in support of their respective pleas. At the end of the trial, the learned Tribunal held that truck was being driven by Charan Singh in a rash or negligent manner and awarded a sum of Rs. 54,400/- by way of compensation. Both the owner and the insurer, i.e. the present appellant, were held liable to pay the compensation money, jointly and severally. 6. Contention of the appellant that there was breach of condition of policy as to the persons entitled to drive the vehicle, in-as-much as the vehicle was being driven by Gurmeet Singh, who admittedly did not possess a driving licence and, as such, insurer could not have been ordered to pay the compensation money, is without merit. Witnesses examined by the claimant, including the claimant himself, who appeared as PW-1, did not say even a word as to who was driving the vehicle when the accident took place. It appears from the cross-examination of the witnesses of the claimant that they did not see the man, who was in drivers seat, at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Charan Singh, the owner of the truck, appeared as RW-1 and testified that it was he who had been driving the vehicle on the relevant date and that his son Gurmeet Singh did not even touch the vehicle. No doubt, suggestions were thrown to the witness on behalf of the appellant that the vehicle was being driven by Gurmeet Singh and a criminal case had also been registered against said Gurmeet Singh for causing the accident, but that by itself would not prove the appellants plea, especially when the suggestion that Gurmeet Singh was driving the vehicle, was denied. 7. Appellant did not adduce any evidence to controvert the testimony of Charan Singh. Learned Counsel urged that one R.C. Vashist, who was engaged as an investigator, had testified that he conducted the investigation and found, per his report Ex. R-3/A, that the vehicle was being driven by Gurmeet Singh and not by Charan Singh and that his testimony and report were sufficient to disbelieve Charan Singhs testimony. The argument has been noticed only to be rejected. R.C. Vashists statement is irrelevant and inadmissible. His report is based on the enquiry, which he made on being approached by the appellant. R-3/A, that the vehicle was being driven by Gurmeet Singh and not by Charan Singh and that his testimony and report were sufficient to disbelieve Charan Singhs testimony. The argument has been noticed only to be rejected. R.C. Vashists statement is irrelevant and inadmissible. His report is based on the enquiry, which he made on being approached by the appellant. He has not said even a word about the basis of his report that the vehicle was being driven by Gurmeet Singh As a matter of fact, the evidence, if any, collected by him in the course of the alleged investigation/enquiry, was required to be adduced before the learned Tribunal. But, that was not produced. Hence, the testimony and the report of this investigator are of no avail to the appellant. 8. The second contention as to the maintainability of the petition, will also not come to the rescue of the appellant. It is true that the claimant alleged that the vehicle was being driven by Gurmeet Singh and so the owner was liable by invoking the principle of vicarious liability. It is also true that the finding of the learned Tribunal is different from this plea of the claimant. But that, in my considered view, does not render the petition incompetent or unmaintainable. 9. In a claim for compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, what is required to be seen is whether the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash or negligent manner. It is of little consequence whether the vehicle was being driven by the owner himself or by his authorized driver. In case, it was being driven by the owner himself, he will be liable as a principal tort-feasor and if it was being driven by his authorized driver, he will be liable in his capacity as the master of the tort-feasor according to the principle of vicarious liability. 10. The claimant, who was a pedestrian and was hit from behind, was not supposed to be knowing as to who was driving the vehicle. Since the police registered the case against Gurmeet Singh, the son of the owner, he (claimant) probably thought that it was said Gurmeet Singh who was driving the truck and pleaded that he (Gurmeet Singh) had caused the accident by driving the truck in a rash or negligent manner. Since the police registered the case against Gurmeet Singh, the son of the owner, he (claimant) probably thought that it was said Gurmeet Singh who was driving the truck and pleaded that he (Gurmeet Singh) had caused the accident by driving the truck in a rash or negligent manner. It hardly needs to be said that strict rules of pleadings are not applicable in the motor accident claim cases. 11. As a result of the above discussion, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the vehicle was being driven by its owner, namely Charan Singh, who admittedly, possessed a valid and effective driving licence, calls for no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.