Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 239 (UTT)

UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. MADHUBALA

2017-04-17

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. All the relevant parties have conceded that the matter be decided today itself. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel of the appellant as well as the insurance company, it transpires that on 15.3.2009, Raghuveer Dutt @ Dinesh Sharma was travelling from Delhi to Rishikesh as a valid passenger in a bus no. UA07M-4316 of the Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation. Said vehicle while passing through the territory of District Muzzafarnagar, during the course of journey, dashed a tanker no. HR38F-4077 causing serious injuries in the head and other parts of the body of Mr. Raghuveer Dutt. Resultantly, he succumbed to the injuries while being shifted to the nearest hospital at Khatauli. So, his dependents/LRs presented the claim petition no. 29/2009, which was adjudicated by the Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and order dated 18.5.2011 holding the Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- along with 6 per cent simple annual interest thereon. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation has filed this appeal because the liability has been fastened on it, all the same such bus was duly and comprehensively insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. The liability has been so fastened on the appellant because in the opinion of the Tribunal, the driver of the bus Jetender Singh was not possessing the valid driving licence on the date of accident. 4. I think that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has been swayed away by the endorsement of some ministerial staff of the licensing officer which is to the effect “authorised to drive transport vehicle w.e.f. 26.9.2009 as per the amended Motor Vehicles Act 14.11.1994”. 5. It has been argued by the learned Counsel of the appellant that the Tribunal has ignored the dates and endorsement, which reads as under: “The licence to drive the transport vehicles is valid from 16.8.2006 to 15.8.2009” (for three years). 6. Learned Counsel of the insurance company has argued that conferring the validity to drive the transport vehicles from 16.8.2006 to 15.8.2009 has not been signed along with the affixation of the seal of any competent officer of the Transport Department. 7. I am not satisfied with this argument because the concerned officer of the Transport Department is not supposed to put his seal and signature in each and every column of such driving licence. 7. I am not satisfied with this argument because the concerned officer of the Transport Department is not supposed to put his seal and signature in each and every column of such driving licence. If there was any anomaly, which is being claimed by the insurance company, then it was open for such insurer to get such anomaly clarified by way of summoning the competent officer in the Court of Law. 8. It is also pertinent to mention that the driving licence of Mr. Jetender Singh was initially issued on 19.2.1992 and it was valid for driving the heavy goods vehicle w.e.f. 23.5.1994. I think that even if it is held that he was not having any valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle on the relevant date and time, the liability of the insurer cannot be exonerated because the said driver was possessing the driving licence to drive the heavy goods vehicles. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court has made the position clear in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , and has observed as under: “If a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. As for example, when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle, he can drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that he must have driving licence both for car and jeep separately. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing the requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.” 9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I allow this appeal and fasten the liability to pay the whole compensation on the Oriental Insurance Company (respondent no. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I allow this appeal and fasten the liability to pay the whole compensation on the Oriental Insurance Company (respondent no. 6), which will deposit the entire amount of compensation within six weeks from today before the Tribunal concerned. Registry shall remit the amount of compulsory statutory deposit along with the interest it has earned to the Tribunal concerned. 50 per cent of the decretal amount has already been released. The remaining sum, deposited by the appellant, together with the interest accrued on it shall be returned to the appellant corporation. After deposit of compensation by the insurance company, the amount released out of the sum deposited by the appellant shall be returned to it and the remaining amount, i.e. 50 per cent, shall be released in favour of the claimants in accordance with their respective shares. 10. Impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent indicated above. Let the LCR be sent back.