Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 556 (UTT)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. BASRUDDIN

2014-12-09

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The judgment dated 22nd July 2008, rendered by Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Udham Singh Nagar, is under challenge. The accident occurred on 30.12.2003, when the truck No. HR-38E-0966 driven by Sri Basruddin met with an accident and dashed the another truck No. HR-20A-6945. 2. As result of this accident, Sri Basruddin suffered injuries inasmuch as his right leg was amputated and doctor measured 60% disability in the body of Sri Basruddin. So, he launched the suit number WCA 06 of 2004 before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. Learned Presiding Officer has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,93,544/- with 12% simple interest amounting to Rs.1,58,513. The sum total of the award is Rs.4,52,058/- and same has been deposited by the Insurance Company, whereagainst the liability has been fastened by the Presiding Officer before preferring this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has highlighted the facts that the driving license of Sri Badruddin was valid with effect from 20.09.2000 to 19.09.2003 and then it was further renewed from 22.01.2004 to 21.01.2007. It clearly shows that on the date of accident i.e. 30.12.2003, Sri Badruddin did not have any valid driving licence and the same could not be renewed after four months with retrospective effect. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 15(1) of the M.V. Act, which reads as under:- “Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry: Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal.” 5. It is clear that the driving licence of Sri Basruddin would be deemed to be valid only with effect from 22.01.2004 onwards and it was not valid on the date of the accident. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also placed reliance of two precedents of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which are as under:- (1) Ram Babu Tiwari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Others, 2008, AIR, SCW 6512. (2) Ishwar Chandra & Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Others, 2007, 10, SCC, 650. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also placed reliance of two precedents of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which are as under:- (1) Ram Babu Tiwari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Others, 2008, AIR, SCW 6512. (2) Ishwar Chandra & Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Others, 2007, 10, SCC, 650. 7. In the abovesaid precedents, it is categorically held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if the licence was not valid on the date of accident, as per provision under Section 15(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for owner of the truck has shown in the Court that under R.T.I. Act, he got information from the A.R.T.O. Office, revealing that the driving licence No.4123/K/90 was sought to be renewed by an application moved on 2nd December, 2003. Thus, learned counsel for owner of the truck has tried to show that the application for renewal of the licence of Sri Basruddin was moved 28 days before the date of accident. So, the liability cannot be fastened upon the owner of the truck. This contention is not acceptable to the Court for the reason that the information rendered by A.R.T.O. Office is not believable and acceptable too. It is strange that if the right leg of the driver Sri Basruddin had been cut on account of this accidental injury, then how A.R.T.O. Office could renew his driving licence after more than four months of the accident. It clearly shows that the A.R.T.O. Office or the concerning wing of that office did not apply the mind, not even the commonsense for making the endorsement of such renewal of driving license of Sri Basruddin. It is obvious that they did not take trouble to see the fitness of Sri Basruddin for driving of vehicle any further. 9. In the facts, as have been stated above, the information with an illegible signature of any person (who has not appended even his name below the signature) is quite unacceptable and further, such information was not ever brought on the record. 10. It is the accepted law under Section 3 of the M.V. Act that no vehicle shall be driven by any person on the public road until and unless he has a valid driving licence. 11. 10. It is the accepted law under Section 3 of the M.V. Act that no vehicle shall be driven by any person on the public road until and unless he has a valid driving licence. 11. It is clear that the owner of the truck permitted his driver to drive his truck without having valid driving licence and the latter also drove the same knowing well that he did not have valid driving licence. 12. So, in the given facts and circumstances, no liability can be fastened upon the Insurance Company. 13. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside with the liberty to the driver Sri Basruddin to lay a fresh petition before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, against the owner of the truck. The amount, so deposited by the Insurance Company, shall be remitted back. In case, the amount has already been reimbursed to the claimants, then Insurance Company shall have the recoverable rights against the owner of the truck.