Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 525 (HP)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. GHOGAN DEVI

2010-03-17

V.K.AHUJA

body2010
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.-This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, herein after to be referred as ‘the Act’, against the award of the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, dated 15.9.1999, vide which the petition filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 under Section 166 of ‘the Act’ was allowed and the appellant/Insurance Company, who was respondent No. 2 before the learned Tribunal was directed to deposit the compensation amounting to Rs.3,59,000/- in favour of the claimants alongwith interest. 2. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the amount, the appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a petition under Section 166 of ‘the Act’ for grant of compensation in regard to the death of Sukh Dev, who died in a scooter accident that took place on 16.9.1996. The respondents being the widow and sons of the deceased had filed the claim petition, which was allowed by the learned Tribunal as mentioned above. The liability was fastened upon the Insurance Company. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove that the driver-cum-owner of the scooter, namely, Daulat Ram, respondent No. 4, now represented by his legal representatives, was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. However, inspite of that findings, the learned Tribunal had wrongly fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the appellant and as such, the present appeal deserves to be allowed accordingly. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the driver/owner of the scooter, namely, Daulat Ram, had submitted that the deceased had already applied for renewal of his licence since he was earlier possessing a valid and effective driving licence, which had expired and since he had already applied for renewal of the same and, therefore, the licence became valid and effective from the date prior to the date of the application and as such, it was a valid and effective driving licence. 7. 7. Before I refer to the law in this regard, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case, dates relevant for the present discussion and the evidence led in this regard. 8. The date of the accident was 16.9.1996. The owner/driver of the scooter involved in the accident was Daulat Ram, original respondent. According to the evidence produced before the learned Tribunal, the copy of the driving licence of Daulat Ram was produced in evidence as Ext. R-4. This licence had been issued on 15.11.1993 and was valid upto 14.11.1995. There is statement of RW-1 Kartar Singh from D.C. office Bilaspur, who was posted as Registration and Licensing Clerk in the office of Registering and Licensing Authority. He had received the licence of Daulat Ram for renewal on 16.9.1996. He furnished a receipt in this regard Ext. R-1 bearing his signatures. According to him, this chit was valid upto 25.9.1996. This only proves that the licence had been received for renewal on 16.9.1996, that is, the date of the accident. It does not lead to the inference that this chit validates the licence from 16.9.1996 or that since chit was valid upto 25.9.1996, the licence does not become valid upto 25.9.1996. It will become valid on the date it is renewed by the Licensing Authority. A perusal of Ext. R-4 will show that this licence was renewed with effect from 24.9.1996 for a period of three years. 9. The above discussion, therefore, clearly leads to the inference that on the date of the accident i.e. on 16.9.1996, original respondent No. 2 Daulat Ram was not possessing any valid driving licence. He could have applied and the period for renewal is 30 days, but he applied on the date of the accident and the licence was renewed from the subsequent date to the accident i.e. from 24.9.1996. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, deceased Daulat Ram was not possessing any valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. It looks surprising that the learned trial Court concluded in Para-8 that the fact remains that Daulat Ram was having a valid licence, but it should have been specified that he was having a valid and effective driving licence prior to the date of the accident. It looks surprising that the learned trial Court concluded in Para-8 that the fact remains that Daulat Ram was having a valid licence, but it should have been specified that he was having a valid and effective driving licence prior to the date of the accident. The mere fact that the licence had been given for renewal does not lead to the inference that it was valid one as has been concluded by the learned Tribunal wrongly. Therefore, I reiterate that licence in question was not valid on the date of the accident. In regard to the licence, the learned counsel for respondent Daulat Ram, now represented by his legal representatives has relied upon the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sughra Bibi and others, 2007 ACJ 2784, wherein it was held by a Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir that the non-renewal of licence would not disable the driver to drive the vehicle and absolve the Insurance Company from the liability. It was observed that a driver once licensed continues to possess the ability to drive the vehicle unless it is proved that he has incurred any physical disability to drive. 10. Contrary to the above decision relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, learned counsel for the appellant had placed reliance upon two decisions. The first decision relied upon was of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others, 2008 ACJ 2860, the question of liability of the Insurance Company was considered by their Lordships. It was observed that driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle had expired prior to the date of accident and was got renewed after the accident. The Tribunal rejected the plea of Insurance Company that the licence was not valid on the date of the accident holding that during the intervening period, the driver was not incompetent or disqualify to drive the truck. High Court concluded that gap in renewal of licence cannot be ground for exoneration. Considering the question of liability of the Insurance Company, it was held by their Lordships that the Insurance Company is not liable. 11. The above decision applies on all four to the present facts and the law has been clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. Considering the question of liability of the Insurance Company, it was held by their Lordships that the Insurance Company is not liable. 11. The above decision applies on all four to the present facts and the law has been clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. A Single Judge of this Court while considering this question in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sudesh Kumari & Ors., II (2007) ACC 386, clearly observed that the licence remains valid as per Sections 14 and 15 of the Act for thirty days after its expiry. If same is renewed within thirty days, renewal relates back to date of expiry. In case renewal is done after thirty days, the licence is deemed to be renewed with effect from date of its renewal. It was held that since on the date of the accident i.e. on 29.5.1995, the licence had already expired on 13.11.1990 and it was renewed on 9.8.1995 i.e. after accident, there was no valid licence and insurer was not liable. This decision also applies to the present facts and keeping in view these two decisions, the ruling referred to above and cited by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 cannot be relied upon. 13. It follows from the above discussion that since the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable. The responsibility has to be fixed upon the driver/owner i.e. Daulat Ram, original respondent, now represented by his legal representatives. The appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be allowed. It has been pointed out during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the appellants the amount in question had bee deposited by the Insurance Company and has also been released in favour of the claimants that should not be directed to be returned by the claimants. There is substance in the plea and the only order being passed is that the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount in question deposited by them from the legal representatives of original respondent No. 2 Daulat Ram, now respondents No. 4(a) to 4(d), by filing an Execution Petition and not by filing a suit. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed accordingly as detailed above. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.