Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 838 (RAJ)

Vijay Kumar v. Narendra Kumar

2014-04-03

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants [non-claimants owner and driver of the offending vehicle) against the judgment cum award dated 10.5.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in M.A.C. No. 48/2007 whereby, whilst allowing the claim application filed by the claimants, they were awarded compensation of Rs. 1,97,800/- and while holding the appellants jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award, the respondent No. 6 Insurance Company was exonerated from the burden to indemnify the award. 2. Facts in brief are that the vehicle being Tata-407 bearing registration No. RJ 31.GA.0511 owned by the appellant No. 1 and driven by appellant No. 2 was involved in an accident with a motor cycle on 14.9.2007. In the collision, Munshi Ram and Sher Singh who were riding the motor cycle received numerous injuries. Munshi Ram expired as a result of the injuries received by him in the accident. A charge-sheet was filed against the appellant No. 2 after investigation of the F.I.R. No. 518/2007 registered for the accident. The claimants filed a claim application [praying for a total compensation of Rs. 40,88,000/-. 3. The Insurance Company filed a written statement taking a plea of rash and negligent driving by the motor cycle driver to be the cause of the accident and also regarding the driver of the Tata-407 Vinod Singh the appellant No. 2 not having an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. On the strength of these contentions in the written-statement, the Insurance Company pleaded that there was a breach of the conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to satisfy the award. 4. The Tribunal framed the usual issues for consideration viz. (i) the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. RJ 31.GA.0511 by its driver Vinod Singh being the cause of the accident; (ii) as to whether Vinod Singh was driving the vehicle on the instructions of the owner Vijay Kumar; (iii) as to whether the Insurance Company was entitled to an exoneration on the basis of the objections taken in the written-statement; (iv) the entitlement of the claimants to receive compensation and the relief. 5. The Tribunal at the conclusion of the proceedings held that the rash and negligent driving of the Tata-407 by its driver Vinod Singh was the cause of the accident. 5. The Tribunal at the conclusion of the proceedings held that the rash and negligent driving of the Tata-407 by its driver Vinod Singh was the cause of the accident. It was also held that the vehicle driver Vinod Singh was having a licence authorising him to drive a light motor vehicle only and was driving the offending vehicle which was a transport vehicle. Accordingly, the defence raised by the Insurance Company regarding the vehicle driver not having a licence of specified category was accepted and it was exonerated from the liability to satisfy the award. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants challenged the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal principally on two grounds\firstly that it was the motor cycle driver, who drove the motor cycle rashly and negligently and thus, himself contributed to the accident; and secondly that the Insurance Company was wrongly exonerated from the liability to satisfy the award. 7. None has put in appearance on behalf of the claimants as well as the Insurance Company despite service of the notices. 8. I have examined the evidence available on record and am of the view that the circumstances clearly point to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata-407 by the driver Vinod Singh to be the cause of the accident. AW-3 Ram Kumar appeared as an eye-witness of the incident and he gave clear evidence that after the collision, the canter driver dragged the motor cycle for a distance of 40 ft. Sher Singh, who was also sitting on the same motor cycle with the deceased, was also examined as an eye-witness in support of the claim and he gave clinching and convincing evidence regarding the rash and negligent driving of the canter driver the appellant Vinod Singh to be the cause of the accident. The site inspection plan produced on record also corroborates the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. Thus the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the issue No. 1 that the rash and negligent driving of Tata-407 vehicle by its driver Vinod Singh was the cause of the accident does not call for any interference. 9. So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. (iii) there is clear cut evidence on record showing that Vinod Singh the driver of the offending vehicle was having the licence Ex.-11 at the time of the accident. 9. So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. (iii) there is clear cut evidence on record showing that Vinod Singh the driver of the offending vehicle was having the licence Ex.-11 at the time of the accident. The licence was valid for driving a light motor vehicle w.e.f. 10.1.2006 to 9.1.2026. The accident occurred on 14.9.2007. Thus on the fateful day, the licence held by the driver was only valid for driving a light motor vehicle. 10. The issue was examined in detail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar v. Mangal Chand and Ors. reported in 2014(1) RLW 462 (Raj.) and it was held that in cases where the driver is holding a driving licence authorising him to drive a light motor vehicle only then he would not be entitled to drive a transport vehicle irrespective of the weight of the vehicle. This Court held such an action to be a clear cut breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from the burden to indemnify the award because there was a clear cut breach of the policy conditions.The appeal thus being devoid of any merit is hereby rejected.Stay petition is also rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******