Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 133 (JK)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lal Munni Devi

2015-03-30

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.:- 1. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 07.08.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, whereby the Insurance Company has been held liable to pay compensation, to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000,00, inclusive of interim relief, alongwith 6% interest thereon from the date of institution of the claim petition till its realization. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 2. The impugned award is challenged mainly on two grounds: first, chat the driver did not possess a valid driving licence or possessed an ineffective driving license, therefore, the liability could not be fastened on the Insurance Company; second, that since the driver possessed a driving license to ply only a Light Motor Vehicle, the owner of the vehicle-Tipper - had committed a breach of the conditions of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the claimants. 3. On both the above points, the learned Tribunal has recorded definite findings of fact. Admittedly, the accident had occurred on 29.03.2009. The license is shown to have been renewed from 28.05.2007 to 25.05.2010 vide renewal No. 150157/MV DK. The record pertaining to renewal of the license, as per the report of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Doda, is said to be missing. If the record is missing that by itself would not invalidate the license, unless it is established that the license is fake or forged which is not the case here. Therefore, it cannot be said that the driver did not have an effective license or that it was invalid. 4. Coming to the second point, the learned counsel contends that the Tribunal had no right to return a finding that the Tipper was a Light Motor Vehicle. The submission on the face of it is without any merit. Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act itself defines a Light Motor Vehicle to mean a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. The provision of law itself leaves it open to determine on the basis of gross vehicle weight or unladen weight whether a vehicle would fall within the category or not. The provision of law itself leaves it open to determine on the basis of gross vehicle weight or unladen weight whether a vehicle would fall within the category or not. In the instant case, the Tribunal having come to a finding that the Tipper falls within the said definition, no exception can be taken thereto, especially so when nothing contrary thereto has been brought on record by the Insurance Company. 6. In light of the above, there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed as such. The appellant, Insurance Company shall comply with and satisfy the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Meanwhile, the Registrar Judicial, High Court, Srinagar, is directed to release the amount deposited by the Insurance Company together with the interest that has accumulated thereon in favour of the claimants under rules after they are duly identified by their counsel.