Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2633 (RAJ)

Murari Lal Jat v. Prem Devi

2011-11-30

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant-owner dissatisfied that the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 6.4.2005 whereby the insurance company was absolved of its liability. 2. Shri L.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors.-(2007) 3 SCC 297 and has argued that Supreme Court in that case has held that every breach of condition of policy may not justify absolving of the insurance company unless it is shown that breach so shown was fundamental in nature and if that contributes to the grounds of accident, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability. It was argued that the appellant-owner at the time of accident was in jail and that earlier when he engaged the driver, he had taken the reasonable precaution of ensuring that driver shall possess a valid driving licence and if due to lapse on his part, the driving licence of heavy motor vehicle could not be renewed on the date of accident, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay compensation. The insurance company should therefore indemnify the owner for payment of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that accident took place due to mechanical defect inasmuch as wheel of the vehicle was suddenly got separated from the vehicle and broke away, therefore, mere non renewal of licence was not the cause of death in this case. 4. Per contra, Smt. Archana Mantri, learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala & Ors.-MACD 2008 (SC) 382, New India Insurance Company vs. Darshana Devi & Ors.-MACD 2008 (SC) 74, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Geeta Bhat & Ors.-MACD 2008 (SC) 146 = 2008(3) RLW 1947 (SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mayawati & Ors.-MACD 2008 (SC) 423, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors.-MACD 2008 (SC) 255, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr.-MACD 2008 (SC) 183 = 2009(1) CCR 20 (SC) and Iswar Chandra & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mayawati & Ors.-MACD 2008 (SC) 423, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors.-MACD 2008 (SC) 255, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr.-MACD 2008 (SC) 183 = 2009(1) CCR 20 (SC) and Iswar Chandra & Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.-2007 (2) TAC 393 (SC) and argued that the Supreme Court in those cases has despite considering its earlier judgment in Swarn Singh, supra has held that if earlier the driver was possessing the driving licence, but if on the date of accident, it was not renewed, it means that he is not possessing a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and, therefore, the insurance company in those cases has been absolved of its liability to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no evidence has been adduced to show that wheel of the vehicle got broke away and separated due to mechanical defect, but on the contrary the evidence has proved that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the licence. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the statement of claimants AW-1, Prabhu Lal AW-2 Prem and AW-3 Ram Nathi. She also referred to the statement of NAW-4 Mohan Lal Meena, the LDC in the office of DTO, Sawaimadhopur, who said that while the licence was renewed for Heavy Motor Vehicle for a period from 30.8.1996 to 29.8.1999 and thereafter from 8.9.1999 to 29.8.2002 and thereafter, it was not renewed till 5.6.2004, but the accident took place in 1.5.2003 and therefore what is proved in evidence is that the driver did not have valid licence on the date of accident to drive a heavy motor vehicle, which was a bus as has been proved by all the aforesaid witnesses. 6. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the judgment of Supreme Court in Swarn Singh, supra was considered in the subsequent judgments as well but even then if on the date of accident, the driver did not possess a duly recognized driving licence for driving motor vehicle, goods vehicle or transport vehicle, merely because for sometime in past, he had a valid licence to do so, would not justify to hold the insurance company liable to pay compensation. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this misc. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this misc. appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.