Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 280 (UTT)

GURUDEV SINGH v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

2008-07-02

B.C.KANDPAL

body2008
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 26.11.2002 and decree dated 02.12.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/First F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C. Case No. 192 of 2000. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.05.2000 at about 07:15 p.m., Sri Mohd. Ahmad @ Babu (deceased) was going to Sitarganj for buying vegetables, suddenly, one Ford Tractor bearing Registration No. UP26A/3984 coming from the Sitargunj side, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased. The accident was took place near Amria Road crossing Sitarganj. The report of the accident was lodged by Sri Firasat on the same day at about 10:30 p.m. at Sitarganj Police Station. Due to the injuries sustained in this accident, Mohd. Ahmad died at the spot. According to the claim petition, on the date of accident, he was 18 years of age and was working as Palleydar and earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal concerned for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite part No. 1 – owner of the tractor contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal concerned. He has alleged that the driver of the tractor was having the valid and effective driving licence. It has further pleaded that on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the liability of compensation is on the Insurance Company and not the owner of the vehicle in question. 4. The opposite party No. 2 – Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement alleging therein that the driver of the tractor has not been made the party in the claim petition. Therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party and the claim petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed at a great length. Thereafter, both the parties led the evidence in support of their case. Therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party and the claim petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed at a great length. Thereafter, both the parties led the evidence in support of their case. The Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal also directed that the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant is on the shoulder of the owner of the tractor. Hence, directed the owner of the tractor to pay the amount of compensation vide impugned judgment and award vide order dated 26.11.2000. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appeal has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle before this Court. 7. Heard Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appeallants, Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company and perused the record. 8. Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the ground that the tractor comes within the category of light motor vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was having the licence to drive the light motor vehicle, therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the driver of the tractor was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 9. Leaned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the offending vehicle was a tractor trolley, as has been pleaded by the claimant in the claim petition. He has submitted that once the tractor was attached with the trailor, then the tractor and the trailor when combined would constitute a goods carrier and the vehicle will be covered within the definition of the transport vehicle and under these circumstances, the driver of the tractor had not been in possession of a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has invited my attention towards the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2006 ACJ 1, Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and 2007(8) Supreme 343, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has invited my attention towards the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2006 ACJ 1, Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and 2007(8) Supreme 343, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal and has submitted that once the driving licence with the driver of the tractor is found to be in respect of the motor vehicle other than the transport motor vehicle, then it cannot be said that the driver of the tractor was having a valid driving licence in his possession because the driver of the tractor was not authorized to drive a transport vehicle and under these circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a case reported in 2008 (1) TAC 812, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & others that the driver has a valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle is also authorized to drive a light goods vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that Section 2(21) of the Central Motor Vehicle define light motor vehicle and Section 2(23) of the Act defines medium goods vehicle, as under :- “Light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms.” 12. Tractor in question does not exceed 7500 kg in weight, therefore, the same can be covered within the definition of the light motor vehicle. 13. In view of the evidence available on record, it is quite clear that the accident in this case took place by the tractor which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver at the time of the accident. As the driver of the tractor was having driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle, therefore, he cannot be said to be disqualified for driving the tractor and it cannot be held that the driver of the tractor was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 14. As the driver of the tractor was having driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle, therefore, he cannot be said to be disqualified for driving the tractor and it cannot be held that the driver of the tractor was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 14. For the reasons stated above and in the light of the observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment 2008 (1) TAC 812 (Supra), I am of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal by which the liability has been fixed on the owner of the tractor is perverse and against the provision of law, the liability in fact is on the shoulder of the Insurance Company by which the tractor in question was insured at the time of the accident. The Insurance Company has not come with the case that the tractor in question was not insured with the Insurance Company on the relevant time of the accident. 15. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal with regard to this aspect that the liability has been fixed on the owner of the tractor is set aside and it is directed that the Insurance Company i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – insurer of the offending tractor in question is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 26.11.2002 and decree dated 02.12.2002. 16. The amount, if any, deposited before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. It is further directed that the Tribunal refunded the excess amount be refunded to the appellant.