Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1869 (RAJ)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pitos

2021-09-28

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, the service of notices upon the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 is dispensed with at his own risk and cost. 2. Although the matter is listed in the orders category, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and disposed of finally. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance company against judgment and award dated 04.09.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First, Udaipur in M.A.C.T. Case No.450/2018, whereby, the learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the respondents-claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.5,66,085/- in their favour on account of the death of Smt. Ram Pyari in the accident which occurred on 12.03.2018. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.2 is erroneous. He submits that on the enquiry being made from the office of the Regional Transport Authority, it was informed that the driving licence of the driver (Afzal) of the insured vehicle bearing registration No.HR-55-X-7861 was cancelled in the month of February, 2018. He further submits that the accident occurred on 12.03.2018 and there was no valid driving licence with the driver- Afzal, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation in the present case in terms of the policy conditions. 6. Learned counsel submits that the deceased- Ram Pyari was a housewife and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He, therefore, submits that the same is also required to be reduced considerably in the present case. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.2 is just and proper as it has come on record that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident namely, Afzal was having a valid driving licence, which was placed on record as Exhibit-15. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.2 is just and proper as it has come on record that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident namely, Afzal was having a valid driving licence, which was placed on record as Exhibit-15. He further submits that even in the testimony of driver of the Truck and owner of the Truck, it had come on record that Afzal was authorized to drive the Light Motor Vehicle (Exhibit-15) which was a valid driving licence and the cancellation of the same was not within the knowledge of the driver and owner of the Truck. Learned counsel further submits that even the driver and owner of the Truck were unaware of the fact that under what circumstances the driving licence of Afzal was cancelled by the Transport Authority. Nothing has come on record showing the reasons for cancellation of the driving licence of Afzal. He, therefore, submits that finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.2 is just and proper and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Tribunal had taken into consideration the factors for computation of the award in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR (2017) SC 5157 and the amount awarded is 'just compensation' in the present case, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 04.09.2019 as well as other relevant record of the case. 10. The factum of accident of the vehicle insured with the appellant-Insurance Company is not disputed in the present case. The fact that the driver of the vehicle Afzal was holding a valid driving licence (Exhibit-15) is also not disputed. The driver and the 11. owner of the Truck in their statements have also stated that the driver was holding a valid driving licence and the owner had kept him as a driver of his Truck. Both Afzal and owner were not aware of the fact of cancellation of the licence done by the Regional Transport Authority in the month of February, 2018. owner of the Truck in their statements have also stated that the driver was holding a valid driving licence and the owner had kept him as a driver of his Truck. Both Afzal and owner were not aware of the fact of cancellation of the licence done by the Regional Transport Authority in the month of February, 2018. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.2 that Afzal was holding a valid driving licence and no reasons were forthcoming for the cancellation of the driving licence of Afzal in the month of February, 2018, it can safely be presumed that both the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were unaware of the fact that the licence of the driver had been cancelled. Thus, in these circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from paying the compensation in the present case. 12. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal are elaborated and well reasoned order. For brevity, the same is reproduced as under :- Thus, the finding on Issue No.2 does not require any interference by this Court. 13. As far as the computation of the award in the present case is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the factors considered for calculating the award are in conformity with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) and the amount awarded in the present case is also 'just compensation' and the same also does not require any interference by this Court. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company lacks merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.