Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 730 (HP)

Sucha Singh v. Ritesh Kumar

2015-06-19

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, CJ. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 24th March, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?) in MAC Petition No. 59-N/2004, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein and the insured/owner- -cum-driver came to be saddled with liability (for short, the ?impugned award?), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimant and insurer have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The insured/owner-cum-driver has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in directing him to satisfy the awarded amount and discharging the insurer from liability on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is - whether the Tribunal has rightly directed the insured/owner-cum-driver to satisfy the impugned award. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant/insured- owner-cum-driver has argued that the accident had taken place on 12th July, 2004 and the appellant had submitted his driving licence in the month of February, 2002 before the Licensing Authority, Jawali, for its renewal, which was renewed on 24th November, 2004. The appellant/insured-owner-cum1183 driver was under legal obligation to submit his driving licence for its renewal as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder, within 30 days of its expiry. But the Licencing Authority has not renewed the Driving License, thus the insurer has to satisfy the impugned award. The argument is misconceived for the following reasons. 6. Admittedly, the driving license was renewed w.e.f. 24th November, 2004 upto 24th November, 2007, which is also recorded in the photocopy of the driving licence Ext. RW- 1/B. In the given circumstances, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence w.e.f. 1st April, 2002 upto 24th November, 2004. Thus, the driver was not having an effective and valid driving licence on the relevant date i.e. the date of the accident. 7. RW- 1/B. In the given circumstances, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence w.e.f. 1st April, 2002 upto 24th November, 2004. Thus, the driver was not having an effective and valid driving licence on the relevant date i.e. the date of the accident. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the owner-cum-driver was in breach. The argument is forceful for the simple reason that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time. Thus, the owner was in breach. 8. This Court has already dealt with this issue in a batch of two FAOs, the lead case of which was FAO No. 308 of 2008, titled as Partap Chand and another versus Harinder Kumar and another, decided on 5th June, 2015. It is apt to reproduce paras 6, 7 & 8 of the aforesaid judgment herein: ?6. Coming to the appeal filed by the owner/insured, admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle though was having a driving licence at the time of accident, which occurred on 12th August, 2004, but that had lost its life on 13th June, 2004 and the same came to be renewed only w.e.f. 24th August, 2004. 7. The Apex Court in Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors, 2008 AIR SCW 6512, has held that the licence was not valid in case it was not renewed on the date of its expiry and renewed from a subsequent date. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 13 and 19 of the said decision hereunder: ?13. The question as to whether the owner of a vehicle had taken care to inform himself as to whether the driver entrusted to drive the vehicle was having a licence or not is essentially a question of fact. However, in this case, it stands admitted that as on the date of accident, namely, on 27.1.1996, the driver did not hold any licence. Furthermore, it is beyond dispute that he had a licence only for one year and for about 3 years thereafter, he failed and neglected to renew his licence. His licence was renewed only on and from 7.2.1996. ……….. …………… …………… ………… 19. The principle laid down in Kusum Rai (supra) has been reiterated in Ishwar Chandra & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. His licence was renewed only on and from 7.2.1996. ……….. …………… …………… ………… 19. The principle laid down in Kusum Rai (supra) has been reiterated in Ishwar Chandra & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [ (2007) 10 SCC 650 ], referring to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, this Court stated the law, thus : "9. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The proviso appended to Section 15 (1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The accident took place 28-4-1995. As on the said date, the renewal application had not been filed, the driver did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident." 8. Therefore, the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be said to be having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the owner had committed breach. In the given circumstances, it can safely be held that the owner has committed the breach for the simple reason that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any licence, what to speak of valid and effective driving licence, at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, the point raised by the owner-insured is turned down.? 9. Having said so, there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 10. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque. 11. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.