Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 693 (HP)

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Avad Pal

2018-04-18

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The Insurance Company, whereon, the apposite indemnificatory liability, was, fastened by the learned Tribunal, has through the extant appeal, hence cast a challenge thereon. The learned counsel for the Insurance company has, prima-facie, at this stage, adequately demonstrated that respondent No. 2, was, at the relevant time, driving a motor cycle, whereas, he was authorized to solitarily drive a Light Motor Vehicle: (a) and with apparently the category of the vehicle, he was driving at the relevant time, falling in a contra distinct category, therefrom, in as much as a motor cycle, (b) hence the pronouncement recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in (2008) 12 SCC 385 , the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter: “In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had not valid and effective license to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing a driving license of driving HMV and he was driving a totally different class of vehicle, which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act.” (c) wherein, it is clearly expostulated, that, a driver authorized to drive a light motor vehicle, hence not ipso-facto thereupon being also bestowed, with an authorization, to also drive a motor cycle, rather being squarely attracted hereat (a) the aforesaid submission addressed by the learned counsel, for the Insurance Company, for his hence challenging fastening, of the apposite indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis it, concomitantly, prima-facie, attains, tremendous legal force. 2. Nonetheless, during the pendency of the instant appeal, before this Court, the learned counsel for the respondent concerned, has instituted an application, cast under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, wherewith a photo copy, of driving license, issued on 4.5.2017, stands appended, (i) with a clear display therein, of, the respondent No. 2, being authorized to drive, a motor cycle in category whereof the offending vehicle, hence also falls. However, the Insurance Company has meted its reply thereto, and, has therein contended, that leave to adduce photo copy, of the driving license, cannot be granted, it being inadmissible, and, irrelevant, for rendering any efficacious findings, upon the issue appertaining, to validity of the apposite driving license. He also contends, that, since the driving license, is apparently issued, on 4.5.2017, whereas, the accident involving, the motor cycle rather occurred in the year 2011, hence also, at the relevant stage, it holds no force or validity. 3. Be that as it may, the force of the aforesaid contention stands blunted, given the non-applicants/respondents, hence omitting to append along with its reply, all the relevant records, held, by the licensing authority concerned, tritely the one, commencing from the period immediately prior to the occurrence, upto, the year 2017, with clear revealations therein, that, neither respondent No. 2, ever applied, for a driving lincense, for, authorizing him to drive a motor cycle, nor it being issued, in close proximity vis-a-vis the relevant occurrence hence taking place. 4. Consequently, if the relevant records, are held, by the RLA concerned, respondent No. 2/applicant may elicit it them therefrom, for his hence proving qua even at the time contemporaneous, to the occurrence, he held the apposite driving license. Moreover, the appellant shall be permitted to adduce rebuttal evidence thereto. 5. Pre-eminently, since the record, has, to be elicited, by the respondent No. 2, from, the RLA concerned, and is to be obviously thereafter produced, before, the MACT concerned, and, whereafter findings are to be returned by it, upon the issue appertaining to the validity of the apposite driving license, photo copy whereof is appended with the instant application by respondent No. 2, hence the application cast under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, is allowed. The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is quashed and set aside, only with respect to the findings returned vis-a-vis the issues appertaining to the validity of driving license. The matter is remanded to the learned MACT concerned, to return findings afresh, upon, the issue appertaining to the validity of the apposite driving license, copy whereof is appended with the instant application. However, liberty is reserved to the counsel for the Insurance company, to, through a fresh appeal, raise objections, with respect to the quantum of compensation already determined under the impugned award. 6. However, liberty is reserved to the counsel for the Insurance company, to, through a fresh appeal, raise objections, with respect to the quantum of compensation already determined under the impugned award. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions/observations, the instant appeal is disposed of. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.