Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2090 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Daria Kanwar

2017-09-19

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal filed by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 07.09.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,96,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application i.e. 28.05.1993 and the Insurance Company has been held liable for making payment of amount of compensation. 2. Application for compensation was filed by the claimants, inter alia, with the averments that one Suraj Singh was travelling in Truck No. RNN-195 and when the Truck was crossing a Nala, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck, who applied breaks suddenly, the gate of the Truck opened and Suraj Singh fell out from the Truck, resulting in, injury to his head and during treatment he succumbed to the said injury. Based on the said averments, compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,57,500/- was claimed. 3. The application was contested by the driver, owner and the Insurer of the Truck. While the driver denied the fact of accident, the Insurer denied its liability, inter alia, alleging violation of policy conditions as the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence. 4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Truck, resulting in Suraj Singh felling off from the Truck and suffering injuries, to which, he later on succumbed. The Tribunal after assessing the quantum of compensation, came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,96,000/- 5. While deciding the issue pertaining to the liability of the Insurance Company though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' and the driver was in possession of driving licence to drive 'Light Motor Vehicle' only, it came to the conclusion that once a driver is in possession of any licence, he is entitled to drive vehicle of any description and held the Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation. 6. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the Tribunal committed error in holding the Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation, inasmuch as, the violation of policy conditions was apparent, wherein the vehicle in question, which was a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' was being driven by a driver holding licence authorized to drive 'Light Motor Vehicle' only and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard deserves to be set aside. Further submissions were made that as no interim order was granted qua the award impugned, the compensation has already been paid by the appellant-Insurance Company and, therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the owner submitted that the finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference and that the finding of negligence itself is incorrect as in the criminal case pertaining to the same accident, the driver has been acquitted having being given benefit of doubt and, therefore, the claim itself is liable to be rejected. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. A bare look at the Certificate of Registration (Ex.-15) indicates that the vehicle in question i.e. the Truck has been registered as a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' having a laden weight of 15,660 kg. and the driving licence of the driver Chetan Ram Meghwal (Ex.-16) clearly indicates authorization to drive Motor Cycle with Gear and 'Light Motor Vehicle' only. It is trite law that a driver holding licence to drive 'Light Motor Vehicle' is not authorized to drive a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' and in case, a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' is found to be driven by the driver having licence authorized to drive 'Light Motor Vehicle' only, the same would be in violation of the policy conditions and the Insurance Company is entitled to be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. 10. In view of the above un-controverted facts, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 3 holding that as the driver had a licence to drive 'Light Motor Vehicle', he was entitled to drive a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' also cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, set aside. 11. 10. In view of the above un-controverted facts, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 3 holding that as the driver had a licence to drive 'Light Motor Vehicle', he was entitled to drive a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' also cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, set aside. 11. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-Owner of the vehicle with reference to the criminal case are concerned, admittedly the owner has neither challenged the award passed by the Tribunal nor has filed any cross-objections in the present appeal questioning the finding of the Tribunal pertaining to the involvement of the vehicle and/or the negligence of the driver of the Truck as such it is not open for him to now question the findings on the said issues. 12. Further, it is well settled that a judgment passed by the criminal court has no implication in so far as the issue before the Tribunal pertaining to the negligence of the driver is concerned and in those circumstances, the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-Owner has no substance, the same are, therefore, rejected. 13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is allowed. The award dated 07.09.2000 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that instead of the appellant-Insurance Company along with owner and driver being held liable for making payment of amount of compensation, it would only be the driver and owner of the vehicle, who would be liable for making payment of amount of compensation. 14. As the appellant-Insurance Company has already made payment of compensation in absence of any interim order in the present appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount of compensation paid by it from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. 15. No order as to costs.