Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1215 (PNJ)

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ram Lal

2016-04-27

DARSHAN SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Darshan Singh, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- United India Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No.3 in the claim petition) against the award dated 15.12.2014, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal'), vide which learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,90,112/- along with interest on account of death of Smt. Gurdai Rani in the motor vehicular accident, which took place on 31.08.2011. 2. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to pay the amount of compensation as respondent No.5-insured has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He had handed over his car to respondent No.4 Surjit Singh, who was not holding any driving licence to drive the car. He contended that even the learned Tribunal in its findings under issue No.3 has categorically held that respondent No.4 Surjit Singh was having the driving licence only for the motorcycle and he does not have any licence to drive the car or the light motor vehicle. But, still the learned Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company which is illegal. He contended that as the insured had handed over his vehicle to the person who was not having the driving licence which is the deliberate violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. So, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of the amount of compensation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5- insured contended that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was stationary. The mechanism of the vehicle was stopped. So, even if respondent No.4 Surjit Singh was not holding the driving licence to drive the car, that will be of no legal consequence and appellant-Insurance Company shall remain liable to indemnify the insured. 4. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 5. This fact is not disputed that respondent No.4 Surjit Singh was having the driving licence only to drive the motorcycle. He does not have any driving licence to drive the car or the light motor vehicle. As per the facts of the case, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. PB-07R-3635 was lying stationary on the road near vegetable market, Mukerian. This fact is not disputed that respondent No.4 Surjit Singh was having the driving licence only to drive the motorcycle. He does not have any driving licence to drive the car or the light motor vehicle. As per the facts of the case, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. PB-07R-3635 was lying stationary on the road near vegetable market, Mukerian. When the motorcycle being driven by Pankaj, on which deceased Gurdai Rani was the pillion rider, was about to cross the said stationary vehicle, the person sitting in the car opened the right hand side door of the car in question in a careless manner. The door of the car struck against the legs of Gurdai Rani and as a result of which, she fell down on the road and suffered the fatal injuries. So, when the accident had taken place, the vehicle was stationary and the accident had only taken place due to opening of the door of the car, which hit the motorcycle. Section 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act'), reads as under :- "126. Stationary Vehicles. - No person driving or incharge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place, unless there is in the driver's seat a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle or unless the mechanism has been stopped and a brake or brakes applied or such other measures taken as to ensure that the vehicle cannot accidentally be put in motion in the absence of the driver." 6. As per the aforesaid provision, the incharge of the motor vehicle shall not cause or allow the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place, unless there is in the driver's seat a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle or unless the mechanism has been stopped and a brake or brakes applied. As per the requirement of Section 126 of the Act, even in the stationary vehicle parked in any public place a duly licensed driver should be in the driver seat, unless the mechanism of the vehicle has been stopped and brakes have been applied. It is settled principle of law that the onus is always upon the Insurance Company to establish the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is settled principle of law that the onus is always upon the Insurance Company to establish the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. So, it was for the appellant-Insurance Company to establish that the mechanism of the vehicle was operating though it was stationary when the accident took place, but no such evidence has been adduced by the appellant-Insurance Company. Surjit Singh respondent No.4 has stepped into the witness box as RW-1 but he has not been even cross-examined on this aspect as to whether at the time of the accident the mechanism was stopped or not. This witness has stated that the car was parked on the road in katcha portion in Sabji Mandi area of Mukerian. He along with Mandeep Singh driver of the said vehicle was standing outside the said car in order to purchase vegetables and fruits. Mandeep Singh also had some work in the bank. So, it is not believable that when a person is going to the market to purchase the articles, he will keep the mechanism of the vehicle in start condition. The obvious conclusion is that the vehicle was parked by stopping its mechanism. If that was so, the fact that respondent No.4 Surjit Singh was not having the driving licence to drive the car will be of no legal consequence in view of the provisions of Section 126 of the Act. Consequently, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation as the vehicle in question was duly insured with it. 7. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, the present appeal has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed.