Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 66 (AP)

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-04-29

J.UMA DEVI, J.UMA DEVI, M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

body2019
JUDGMENT : M. Seetharama Murti, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking verbatim the following relief/s: '.....to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, to declare the award of the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Kadapa, dated 29.3.2018 in PLAC No. 61/2017, as being illegal, unjust, arbitrary, improper, bias, null and void, violation of principles of natural justice, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-United India Insurance Company, of the learned Government Pleader for Law & Legislature, appearing for the 1st respondent; and of Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent, the District Legal Services Authority, Kadapa, is impleaded as party respondent as the Award impugned is one passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services. We have perused the material record. 3. The basic facts, in brief, are as follows: The 2nd respondent herein is the owner-cum-insured of the Lorry bearing Registration No. AP04 x 9136, which was insured with the writ petitioner Insurance Company. PW 1-the 2nd respondent engaged PW 2-D.V. Swamy Reddy as a driver of the said lorry. On 22.12.2016, when -PW 2 was driving the said lorry, which was proceeding to Chennai, it met with an accident near Mangampeta of Railway Kodur. The said accident occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving of the said driver of the lorry. On the 2nd respondent informing the writ petitioner Insurance Company about the said accident, the writ petitioner Insurance Company arranged a spot survey by deputing an assessor. He inspected the vehicle and took photographs. The 2nd respondent got the vehicle repaired in various workshops viz., G.M. Glass Works, Sri Vijaya Durga Motors, Star Battery Works, Sri Ganesh Automobiles, National Lorry Body Builders and Anwar Auto Electrical Works situated at Kadapa and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,07,746/-. Later the 2nd respondent made a claim along with the original bills showing various expenditures incurred on repairs etcetera. The writ petitioner Insurance Company repudiated the claim. 2,07,746/-. Later the 2nd respondent made a claim along with the original bills showing various expenditures incurred on repairs etcetera. The writ petitioner Insurance Company repudiated the claim. After exchange of notices, the 2nd respondent filed PLAC No. 61 of 2017 before the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Kadapa, ('PLA', for short) claiming the afore-stated amount with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the claim besides a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the writ petitioner Insurance Company. The writ petitioner Insurance Company resisted the said claim. On merits and by the award impugned in this writ petitioner, the PLA allowed the claim petition of the 2nd respondent and directed the writ petitioner Insurance Company to pay Rs. 2,07,746/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Aggrieved thereof, the Insurance Company filed the present writ petition. 4. We shall first deal with the facts and contentions. The same are as under: The 2nd respondent is the owner-cum-insured of the subject lorry. The said lorry was insured with the writ petitioner Insurance Company. Its validity period is from 00.00 hours of 5.8.2016 to midnight of 4.8.2017. The accident resulting in damage to the said lorry had occurred, on 22.12.2016, that is, within the above said period of insurance. The 2nd respondent made a claim for the afore-stated subject amount under category 'own damages' by submitting the original bills. The writ petitioner Insurance Company, vide letter, dated 6.6.2017, repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the lorry did not hold a valid and effective driving licence as on the date and at the time of the accident. Therefore, the 2nd respondent got issued a legal notice, dated 20.6.2017, reiterating the claim and stating that the driver was holding a driving licence bearing No. 25621998, which authorized him to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport) and motor cab transport vehicle with validity respectively till 14.7.2018 and till 2.12.2016 and that the second category/class of licence was renewed with effect from 18.4.2017 till 17.4.2020 and that the accident occurred during the interregnum period and, therefore, the writ petitioner Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. In the reply notice, dated 27.6.2017, the writ petitioner Insurance Company stated that the copy of the driving licence of the driver, which is submitted, was issued by Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa, and that it reflects that he possessed licence to drive LMV (non-transport) and motor cab transport vehicle - transport and that the validity of the licence authorizing to drive motor cab transport vehicle - [transport] expired on 2.12.2016 and that, therefore, by the date and time of accident, that is, 22.12.2016, the driver of the lorry is not holding a licence authorizing him to drive the said category/class of vehicle, that is, the subject lorry, and that the 2nd respondent, who is the owner-cum-insured had permitted the said driver who was not having valid licence to drive the lorry and thereby violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made there under and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation for 'own damages', that is, damages caused to the vehicle owned by the insured and that, therefore, the claim is rightly and validly repudiated and that a communication is accordingly sent to the 2nd respondent/owner-cum-insured vide letter dated 6.6.2017. As already noted, when the 2nd respondent submitted a claim application before the PLA, the Adalat, on merits, partly allowed the claim and directed the writ petitioner Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs. 2,07,746/- with interest as stated supra. Thus, the PLA rejected the afore-stated contentions of the writ petitioner Insurance Company. Aggrieved thereof, the Insurance Company filed this writ petition. 5. The principal issue that arises for determination is - 'whether the driver of the lorry held, as on the date and at the time of the accident, an effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the lorry?' 5A. Dealing with this issue, it is to be noted that from the evidence brought on record the following aspects are noticeable: 'The driver held a licence issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa, which authorized him to drive LMV (non-transport) and motor cab transport vehicle. The date of the first issue is 15.7.1998. The licence was being renewed from time to time. Nevertheless, his licence authorizing him to drive motor cab transport vehicle expired on 2.12.2016. The date of the first issue is 15.7.1998. The licence was being renewed from time to time. Nevertheless, his licence authorizing him to drive motor cab transport vehicle expired on 2.12.2016. Therefore, by the date and at the time of accident, that is, 22.12.2016, the licence authorizing him to drive the subject lorry had expired. It is pertinent to note that the accident occurred within 30 days from the date on which the said category/class of licence had expired. However, the licence was renewed with effect from 18.4.2017 till 17.4.2020.' 5B. In this backdrop of facts, learned Standing Counsel for the writ petitioner Insurance Company contended that the evidence brought on record makes it manifest that the driver-PW 2 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence as on the date and at the time of accident and that the driver's licence was not renewed within thirty days period retrospectively from the date of expiry of licence and that the licence was renewed, on 18.4.2017, that is, long after the accident; and, hence, the driver was not authorized to drive the lorry on the date and at the time of accident and that the owner entrusted the lorry to the driver knowing fully well that the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving licence and that, therefore, there is violation of terms & conditions of policy and the provisions of law and for the said reasons the writ petitioner Insurance Company is justified in repudiating the claim and that it is entitled to contend that it is absolved from liability to pay the compensation more particularly as the claim is a claim for own damages of the owner-cum-insured and as the claim is not a third party claim. He finally submitted that the PLA erroneously fastened the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 5C. He finally submitted that the PLA erroneously fastened the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 5C. Per contra, the 2nd respondent insured contends that as the accident occurred within 30 days from the date of expiry of the licence and as the licence was later renewed and that as the driver is competent to drive the subject lorry at the time of accident and that as his licence was renewed without the requirement of obtaining a fresh licence, the mere fact that the accident occurred after the licence had expired and before it is renewed is insignificant and that the said circumstances will not absolve the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the compensation. 6. It is profitable to refer to the provisions of law and the relevant legal position. Driving licence is defined in Section 2(10) of the Act as under: "driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter-II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.' The above definition does not make any reference to the period of its validity. Section 14, which deals with currency of licence to drive motor vehicles, reads as under: "14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.-(1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. Section 14, which deals with currency of licence to drive motor vehicles, reads as under: "14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.-(1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,- (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and (b) in the case of any other licence,- (i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,- (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier (ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal. Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this subsection continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry." Section 15, which deals with renewal of licence, reads as under: "15. Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this subsection continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry." Section 15, which deals with renewal of licence, reads as under: "15. Renewal of driving licences.-(1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry: Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal: Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 8 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence. (2) An application for the renewal of a driving licence shall be made in such form and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made previous to, or not more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf. (3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made previous to, or not more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf. (4) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government: Provided that the fee referred to in subsection (3) may be accepted by the licensing authority in respect of an application for the renewal of a driving licence made under this sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from applying within the time specified in sub-section (3): Provided further that if the application is made more than five years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective, the licensing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence, unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 9. (5) Where the application for renewal has been rejected, the fee paid shall be refunded to such extent and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (6) Where the authority renewing the driving licence is not the authority which issued the driving licence it shall intimate the fact of renewal to the authority which issued the driving licence." On expiry of the period specified in the provision of law, every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry continues to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry. Further, the holder of the licence has an option, in terms of Section 15, to renew it even after the expiry of its effectiveness, that is, even after the period prescribed. Insofar as the licence of the category or the class in question, even after the expiry of the prescribed period of 30 days, the driver is entitled to get the licence renewed and he need not apply for a licence afresh. He needs to apply only for renewal. On such renewal, it regains its effectiveness. Insofar as the licence of the category or the class in question, even after the expiry of the prescribed period of 30 days, the driver is entitled to get the licence renewed and he need not apply for a licence afresh. He needs to apply only for renewal. On such renewal, it regains its effectiveness. Sections 3, 14 and 15 taken together convey an idea that the licencee continues to be duly licenced, subject to his obligation to get the licence renewed, after the period of its effectiveness. Be that as it may. 7. In The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow v. Santosh Kumari and others, 2018 (6) ALJ 585, the Lucknow Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was confronted with squarely a similar question - "Whether the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the insured/awarded amount, in case the accident occurs within thirty days of the expiry of the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle?" From the facts of the cited case, it is evident that driving licence of the driver expired, on 25.12.2006, and that the accident occurred six days thereafter, on 31.12.2006, and that the driving licence was renewed on 2.4.2007, i.e., after a little more than three months. It was held in the said decision as follows: "Proviso to Section 14 of the Act that has been emphasized by us clarifies that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry." "The accident occurred within thirty days of expiry of licence, therefore, under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act, it remained effective." Finally it was held that the appellant insurer would be liable to pay to the claimants, the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 8. On the above analysis we hold that the driver of the lorry held, as on the date and at the time of the accident, an effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the subject lorry. 8. On the above analysis we hold that the driver of the lorry held, as on the date and at the time of the accident, an effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the subject lorry. Dealing further with the issue of liability of the insurer, be it re-noted that the said lorry was insured with the writ petitioner Insurance Company and that the validity period of the policy of insurance is from 00.00 hours of 5.8.2016 to midnight of 4.8.2017 and that the accident resulting in damage to the said lorry had occurred, on 22.12.2016, that is, within the above said period of insurance. The copy of the policy, on a plain perusal reflects that premium was also paid to cover the risk of 'own damages'. Therefore, we hold that the writ petitioner Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation that may be awarded to the 2nd respondent owner-cum-insured. Be that as it may. 9. Apart from advancing the contention that there is no liability to pay any compensation, with which we did not agree, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Standing Counsel for the writ petitioner Insurance Company further submitted that since the claim in the instant case is not a third party claim and as the instant claim is one for own damages, and as the driver did not hold a valid and effective licence authorizing him to drive the lorry at the time of the accident, the question of giving a direction to the insurer to indemnify, and, if so advised, recover the same from the insured does not arise as the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 SCC (Cri.) 733, has no application to cases other than third-party risks. In support this contention, he placed reliance on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 . However, this contention is of no avail to the writ petitioner Insurance Company, as the case on hand is not one wherein a direction to pay and recover is to be given and as, having regard to the facts and principles of law applicable, we have held supra that absolute liability can be fastened on the insurer. 10. However, this contention is of no avail to the writ petitioner Insurance Company, as the case on hand is not one wherein a direction to pay and recover is to be given and as, having regard to the facts and principles of law applicable, we have held supra that absolute liability can be fastened on the insurer. 10. Though a feeble contention that when the claim was disputed by the answering respondent, the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) has no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the claim and grant any relief to the claimant was also raised by the Insurance Company before the PLA, the said contention is not canvassed before this Court in view of the settled legal position that the PLA is competent and is having jurisdiction to go into the merits of the matter and resolve the disputed claims and pass an award on merits of the matter. 11. Coming finally to the quantum of compensation awarded, it is to be noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the writ petitioner Insurance Company alternatively contended that the assessor/surveyor, who inspected the vehicle, estimated the cost of repairs at Rs. 1,07,000/- and hence, the claim should have been allowed for the said sum and not for any amount exceeding the said amount. However, the PLA, having adverted to the documents/Bills for repairs marked, noted that the 2nd respondent- claimant proved the claim to the extent of, Rs. 2,07,746/- and that Exhibit B4 reflects that the total value of the spare parts was Rs. 4,12,100/- and that on verification of the documents it is satisfied that the claimant proved that the claimant incurred the above expenditure of Rs. 2,07,746/- on repairs of the damaged vehicle and hence, the actual expenditure incurred can be awarded to the claimant/the 2nd respondent. In the light of the fact that the quantum of compensation was determined and awarded after careful scrutiny of the evidence by the PLA, we do not find any merit in the contention of the writ petitioner Insurance Company. 12. For all the reasons assigned and our findings supra, we hold that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.