Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 269 (PNJ)

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maya Devi

2014-02-04

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: - The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short ‘the Tribunal’), dated 29.9.2010, vide which, a sum of Rs.16,75,272/- has been awarded to the claimants, as compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the deceased was a Haryana Govt. employee, therefore, the financial assistance given by the State Govt. is liable to deducted from the compensation. She further submits that driving licence held by the driver was not valid for diving the commercial vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the driver and owner submits that the driving licence held by the driver was valid and effective for diving the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured at the time, therefore, the Insurance company cannot run away from its liability. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the deceased had paid the premium for the insurance, which is not paid by the Government funds, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot claim any right to deduct the same from the compensation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully. 6. It is not disputed that Ram Parshad died in a road accident occurred on 28.8.2008. He was serving in Public Works Department at Nuh. This Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Saroj Devi and others, [2012(2) Law Herald (P&H) 982] : FAO- 589-2010, decided on 21.12.2011, has already decided the issue with regard deduction of financial assistance given by the State Government. In view of the formula adopted by this court in Saroj Devi’s case (supra), the following compensation towards loss of dependency deserves to be allowed:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Monthly Actual Notional Increase Annual Multiplieer Compen- Compen- Total income age of age in future depen- as per Sarla sation for sation for compen- in the (Actual Income dencey Verma (to full Salary Pension sation : Rupees) decea age of the as per be broken period i.e. peried i.e. (column 8+ sed number of Sarla Verma into 2 parts upto 58 upto 58 column 9) years of full if multiplier yrs. years last drawn spills over (rounded (rounded salary as per the age of off) off) Compassion- 58 yrs. years last drawn spills over (rounded (rounded salary as per the age of off) off) Compassion- 58 yrs. Before ate Rules) + after supera- nnuation) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12130 40 40+12=52 Nil 4/5th x 12 11 (6+5) 6,98,688/- 5,82,240/- 12,80,928/- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ordered accordingly. 7. In view of Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others, [2013(3) Law Herald (SC) 2154] : (2013-3) PLR 776, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met, if a sum of Rs. One lac towards loss of consortium (including the already awarded) payable to the widow only; Rs. One lac towards loss of love and affection to the mother on furnishing her affidavit, if alive; Rs. One lac towards loss of love, care and guidance to the children, to be paid in equal shares and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and last rites (including already awarded) is allowed. Ordered accordingly. 8. Now the question is to be decided, who would be liable to pay the awarded compensation. 9. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:- 3. Necessity for driving licence .- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [ other than a motor cab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 ] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 10. In the present case, the driver of the offending vehicle was having a licence for LMV, whereas the offending vehicle was a Mahindra Pick up, which is a commercial vehicle and therefore, to drive the same, the necessary endorsement is required, which was not made on the licence at the time of accident. Thus, the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, which is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is absolved from its liability, and the owner and the driver of the offending is held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. However in view of National Insurance Co. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is absolved from its liability, and the owner and the driver of the offending is held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. However in view of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and others 2004 ACJ 2094 the insurance company is given right firstly to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner and the driver of the offending vehicles jointly or severally. 11. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed.