Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 587 (UTT)

UNITED INSURANCE COMP. LTD. v. MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY

2017-11-06

LOK PAL SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. (oral) Present appeal is arises out of the judgment and award dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Addl. District Judge, Nainital in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 151 of 2011 whereby learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 80,000/- as compensation to the injured claimant. 2. Case in brief is that claimant Manoj Kumar Pandey on 07.02.2011 was going to attend the marriage with his friend Dheeraj Suyal and Kamlesh Suyal in an Auto bearing registration no. UK04 TA 2161. When the aforesaid auto at about 7:45 reached at Kusumkhera Chowk, then the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently due to which the claimant fell down from the vehicle and his left leg was got crushed and fractured. He was taken to Sai Hospital, Haldwani where he got treatment and spent about Rs. 50,000/- and also remain on bed and faced physical and mental agony. 3. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the vehicle, driver of the vehicle and insurance company (appellant) and they filed their separate written statements. They denied that the driver of the Auto was at fault. The appellant insurance company pleaded, that the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle in violation of the terms of the policy. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed following issues:- (i) Whether on 07.02.2011, at about 7:40 in Kusumkhera Chawk, Kaladungi Road, Haldwani, claimant with his friends was going in auto rikshaw, bearing registration no. UK04 TA 2161 to attend the marriage, then the driver of the auto rikshaw allegedly driving the vehicle rashly and negligently due to which the claimant fell down and his leg got crushed and received serious injuries? (ii) Whether the driver of the vehicle was having valid driving license? (iii) To what relief, if any, the claimant is entitled and from whom? 5. The tribunal recorded oral evidence of the parties and also perused the documents, and after hearing the parties decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and awarded Rs. 80,000/- as compensation to him. The tribunal directed that the amount of compensation shall be paid by United India Insurance Company with whom vehicle was insured. Aggrieved by said order this appeal is preferred by the United India Insurance Company. 6. 80,000/- as compensation to him. The tribunal directed that the amount of compensation shall be paid by United India Insurance Company with whom vehicle was insured. Aggrieved by said order this appeal is preferred by the United India Insurance Company. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that at the time of the incident the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid driving license, as there was no endorsement on the driving license of transport vehicle. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable as there is no requirement of such endorsement on the driving license. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011 decided on 03.07.2017, has held that there is no requirement of endorsement of plying the commercial vehicle. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. 8. Thus, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra, the submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license has no substance. 9. The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Statutory deposit shall be remitted to the tribunal concerned along with lower court records. 10. No order as to costs.