Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1231 (RAJ)

Raja Ram v. Rajendra

2010-07-15

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2010
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Challege in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 20.08.1999 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 70,000/- in favour of the claimant-appellant and against non-claimant-respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation and fixing the liability upon respondent No.3-the National Insurance Co. Ltd. also. 2. Back ground facts, in a nut-shell, are thus: That on 15th of July 1996 at about 7.00 p.m., the injured appellant-Raja Ram was going from Kachhi Basti, Jagatpura in a Vikram Tempo bearing registration No. RJ-14-P-4866. It is alleged that the vehicle Vikram Tempo was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and at a fast speed. It is stated that no sooner did the Tempo reach "TARON KI KOONT" than it suddenly turned turtled and the appellant got pressed under it. The claimant appellant sustained injuries on his right hand and leg. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for respondent No.3-the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment. 4. The only crucial question springing for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether the learned trial Judge has rightly absolved the National Insurance co. Ltd. from its liability to pay compensation to the appellant? 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant canvassed that although the license held by driver Rajendra of Vikram Tempo expired on 6th June, 1996, the same later on having been renewed w.e.f. 27th July, 1996 to 26th July, 1999, the Insurance Co. was liable to reimburse the amount of compensation payable by the respondent No.1 & 2 to the appellant-claimant. He cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court pronounced in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala & Ors. reported in MACT 2008 (SC) 382 in support thereof. 6. E-contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court pronounced in the case of Ishwar Chandra & Ors. vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in MACT 2007(1) (SC) 416, the Insurance Co. reported in MACT 2008 (SC) 382 in support thereof. 6. E-contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court pronounced in the case of Ishwar Chandra & Ors. vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in MACT 2007(1) (SC) 416, the Insurance Co. cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant-appellant as the licence of the driver Vikram Tempo was not renewed after 6th June, 1996 till 27th July, 1996 and as such it shall be deemed that the driver was not having a valid license on the date when the vehicle met with the accident. In the instant case, the accident took place on 15th July, 1996. The driving license of respondent No.1 Rajendra was not valid on 15th July, 1996, hence, the owner of the vehicle committed the breach of the conditions of the Insurance Police and in such a situation, the Insurance Co. cannot be held liable. The judgment of the learned Tribunal is legally correct and the same warrants no intervention. 7. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran singh & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 = RLW 2004(2) SC 161 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:- "45. Thus, a person whose licence is ordinarily renewed in terms of teh Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, despite the fact that during the interregnum period, namely, when the accident took place and the date of expiry of the licence, he did not have a valid licence, he could during the prescribed period apply for renewal thereof and could obtain the same automatically without undergoing any further test or without having been declared un-qualified therefor. Proviso appended to Sec. 14 in unequivocal terms states that the licence remains valid for a period of thirty days from the date of its expiry. 46. Section 15 of the Act does not empower the authorities to reject an application for renewal only on the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantime the provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in Secs. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he cannot be said to be delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry." 8. This aspect of the matter stands covered by a decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company vs. Kusum Rai & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 250 = RLW 2006(3) SC 1863 also, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to Swaran Singh (supra), opined:- "14. This Court in Swaran Singh clearly laid down that the liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis the owner would depend upon several factors. The owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. The question as regards the liability of the owner vis-a-vis the driver being not possessed of a valid licence was considered in Swaran Singh stating (SCC pp. 366-37, para 89). 9. Both the aforesaid decisions have been cited in the case of Ishwar Chandra & Ors. vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in MACT 2007(1) (SC) 416 and the Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance on the judgment of Swaran Singh (supra) and Kusum Rai & Ors. (supra) held thus : "From a bare perusal of the said provision, (Proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act relating to renewal of Driving License), it would appear that the licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The proviso appended to Sec. 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The accident took place on 28.4.1995. As on the said date, the renewal application had not been filed, the driver, did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident." 10. The accident took place on 28.4.1995. As on the said date, the renewal application had not been filed, the driver, did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident." 10. In this case, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that although the licence held by the driver of the Tractor expired on 27.8.1994, the same later on having been renewed, the Insurance Co. was liable to reimburse the amount of compensation payable by the appellant to the claimants-respondents. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that since the accident took place on 28.4.1995 and the licence of the driver of the Tractor expired on 27th August, 1994, thus as on the sadi date, the renewal application was not even filed, the driver did not have a valid license on the date when the vehicle met with an accident and the Hon'ble Apex Court, there being no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same accordingly. 11. The facts of the instant case are similar and the judgment of Ishwar Chandra & Ors. (supra) is found to have fully applied to the case on hand. In the instant case also, the accident took place on 15th July, 1996 and the license of the driver of offending vehicle expired on 6th June, 1996, as it was valid from 7th June, 1993 to 6th June, 1996. Thereafter, the license was got renewed w.e.f. 27th July, 1996 to 26th July, 1999. In the interregnum period w.e.f. 7th June, 1996 to 26th July, 1996, the driver had no license nor had he filed any application for renewal of the same. The proviso of Section 15(1) of the Act envisages that if the period of driving license expires and the driver files an application for renewal thereof, the original license, despite expiry, shall remain valid for a period of thirty days from the date of expiry. The respondent No.1 Rajendra is not found to have filed any application for renewal even after 6th June, 1996 uptil 15th July, 1996. The accident in this case occurred after more than a month of the expiry of the driving licence, hence, in the light of the judgment of Ishwara Chandra & Ors. (supra), it shall be deemed that the driver did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident. The accident in this case occurred after more than a month of the expiry of the driving licence, hence, in the light of the judgment of Ishwara Chandra & Ors. (supra), it shall be deemed that the driver did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident. The learned Tribunal has rightly absolved the respondent No.3-the National Insurance Co. Ltd. from its liability to pay the amount of compensation and the impugned judgment is found to be perfectly just, proper and in accordance with the provisions of law, with which I fully concur and the impugned judgment warrants no intervention. 12. For the reasons stated above, the civil misc. appeal being bereft of merits deserves to be dismissed and the same stands dismissed accordingly.