Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1678 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Roop Lal

2016-08-12

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 19th April, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu Himachal Pradesh, (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No.38 of 2009, titled Roop Lal vs. Chuni Lal & others, whereby a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant and the insurer came to be saddled with the liability, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimant and the owner have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and the Tribunal has fallen into an error in saddling the insurer with the liability. 4. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was a Jeep bearing registration No.HP-66-0536, , which, as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), was a Light Motor Vehicle, the driver was having valid and effective LMV licence and was competent to drive the Light Motor Vehicles in terms of mandate of the Act. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer argued that no doubt the driver was having a valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles (non-transport), however, since there no endorsement on the said licence, the Tribunal has fallen into an error in saddling the insurer with the liability. 5. This Court in series of cases i.e. FAO No.320 of 2008, titled Dalip Kumar and another vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & another, decided on 6th June, 2014, FAO No.306 of 2012, titled Prem Singh and others vs. Dev Raj and others, decided on 18th July, 2014 and FAO No.54 of 2012, titled Mahesh Kumar and another vs. Smt.Priaro Devi and Others, decided on 25th July, 2014, has discussed the issue and held that the driver having driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle is not required to have endorsement of “PSV” i.e. public service vehicle. 6. 6. The Apex Court in latest decision, in Kulwant Singh and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2015) 2 SCC 186 , has held that the driver who is having valid and effective driving licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle is not required to have endorsement to drive a light commercial vehicle. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs No.10 and 11 hereunder: “10. In S. Iyyapan (supra), the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ could drive ‘light motor vehicle’ used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the Insurance Company could not disown its liability. It was observed : “18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment (Civil Misc. Appeal No.1016 of 2002, order dated 31.10.2008 (Mad) is, therefore, liable to be set aside.” No contrary view has been brought to our notice. 11. Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach of any condition of insurance policy, in the present case, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights.” 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed any other ground. However, I have gone through the record and the impugned award and am of the considered view that the impugned award needs no interference. 8. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payees’ account cheque or by depositing the same in his bank account. 9. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 10. Send down the record after placing a copy of this judgment on the Tribunal’s file.