Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 733 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Dhanwati

2014-06-06

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, Judge This appeal has arisen out of the award rendered on 18.4.2007, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba in MAC Petition No.108 of 2004, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the respondents/claimants in the sum of Rs.4,49,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till its realization. The burden of the compensation, as determined in favour of the respondents/claimants, was laid upon the insurer of the offending vehicle, who is the appellant before this Court. 2. The appellant/insurer is aggrieved, by the learned Tribunal, having laid the burden of compensation on it. The learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that the driver of the offending vehicle, as, reflected by his driving licence existing on record, comprised in Ex.R-1, as issued on 8.2.2001, authorized him to drive a light motor vehicle (LMV) (NT), and was valid up to 7.2.2004. The accident involving the ill fated vehicle occurred on 2.5.2004. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the deposition of the Licencing Clerk, who has appeared as RW-1 and who has deposed that the licence aforesaid was issued on 8.2.2001 and was renewed on 12.2.2004. However, he has omitted to depose that it bore an endorsement of its holder being authorized to drive a transport vehicle. His pointed and focused address before this Court is on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 mandating that with the coming into force of clause (e) in Rule 2-A on and with effect from 28.3.2001, a driver holding a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, being stripped of his capacity, to, drive a transport vehicle, as, was the category of the ill fated vehicle, unless, a statutory authority empowers him to do so, comprised in an endorsement in the driving licence issued to the driver, authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle. Consequently, it is urged before this Court that given the fact that Ex. Consequently, it is urged before this Court that given the fact that Ex. R-1, omits, to bear the enjoined statutory authorization permitting, its, holder to drive a transport vehicle, as was, undisputedly, the category of the vehicle, as was being driven by the driver at the relevant time, in as much as, on, 2.5.2004, hence, the driving licence at the apposite stage was not a valid and effective one. In the factual matrix of this case, especially, given the fact of the accident having occurred subsequent to 28.3.2001 and with its driver not carrying in his driving licence, Ex. R-1, an authorization by the competent authority empowering him to drive a transport vehicle, as a concomitant, then Ex. R-1 is to be construed to be not a valid and effective driving licence. 3. On the contrary, the judgment reported in S. Iyyapan versus United India Insurance Company Limited and another (2013) 7 SCC 62 , relied by the learned counsel for the respondents is, inapplicable. When the judgment of the Apex Court in S. Iyyapan’s case supra enshrines that the insurer of the offending vehicle, cannot, seek to exculpate, its, liability to pay to the victim or his legal representatives, the amount of compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on the strength that the driver was holding a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle even without, it, bearing an endorsement, authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle as was the category of the ill fated vehicle. In other words, even in the face of the driver, who was holding a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, did not hold such a driving licence with an endorsement by the licencing authority authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle, the absence of such endorsement, was construed by the Hon’ble Apex Court to be not repulsing the liability of the insurer to pay compensation to the victim or his legal representatives. However, the view enunciated in the citation, is, in applicable as the accident in the judgment, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents occurred, on, 23.5.1998, on which date the amended rule was, not, in operation or in force. 4. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, is, inapplicable to the facts of the case in hand. 4. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, is, inapplicable to the facts of the case in hand. However, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is applicable with full force, to, the facts of the case in hand. Resultantly, the appeal, is, allowed and the impugned award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba is set aside to the extent of its laying the burden of compensation as determined, in, favour of the respondents/claimants, on the appellant. Consequently, the burden of compensation as determined in favour of the respondents/claimants, is now, hence, laid upon the owner of the ill fated vehicle i.e. respondent No.6, in whose employment respondent No.7 undisputedly was at the relevant time. Consequently, while applying the principle of Liability of Master for tort of servant, the respondent No.6 is held liable to pay the respondents/claimants the amount of compensation as determined.