Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 571 (RAJ)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Ashok Kumar

2021-03-05

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 26.02.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh in MACT Case No. 18/2000, whereby 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 claimants and awarded Rs.63,000/- as compensation in their favour on account of the injuries sustained by Ashok Kumar in the accident which occurred on 25.10.1999. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.3 are clear, categoric and specific wherein, the fact that the driver of the bus was not holding a valid driving license on the date of accident, is proved. He submits that the driver of the bus was having a license to drive the light motor vehicle and by an endorsement, he was also permitted to drive the heavy motor vehicle with effect from 07.03.1996 to 06.08.1999 and thereafter the same was renewed from 28.10.1999 to 27.10.2002. He further submits that in view of the specific and clear findings on Issue No.3, the driver of the bus was not holding the valid driving license to drive the bus on the date of accident. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error while deciding Issue No.3 against the Insurance Company and holding that even if the license was not renewed, the driver of the bus was competent to drive the vehicle. He, therefore, submits that the findings on Issue No.3 are contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari vs United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2008 ACJ 2654 . Learned counsel, while replying to the submissions made on cross objections, submits that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case also does not require any interference by this Court as the Tribunal awarded a 'just compensation' to the appellant for the injuries suffered in this case. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. Learned counsel, while replying to the submissions made on cross objections, submits that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case also does not require any interference by this Court as the Tribunal awarded a 'just compensation' to the appellant for the injuries suffered in this case. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. Lalit Parihar, learned counsel for respondent No.5, submit that it is a fact that the driver of the bus knew driving, as before and after the accident the license was validated by the transport agencies and it cannot be said that the driver of the bus was not eligible to drive the vehicle on the date of accident, therefore, the findings of the Tribunal in the present case are just and proper. They further submit that no interference is warranted on the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.3. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the amount of compensation which was awarded in the present case for the injuries suffered by the cross objectioner Ashok Kumar, is on the lower side. He submits that the cross objectioner sustained three grievous injuries and was hospitalized for a period of about seven days and, therefore, a suitable amount in the present case is prayed to be enhanced. 5. I have considered the submission made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment dated 26.02.2003 as well as other relevant record of the case. 6. On Issue No.3, the facts have been crystalized to the effect that the driver of the bus was holding a valid HTV license from 07.03.1996 to 06.08.1999 and thereafter from 28.10.1999 to 27.10.2002. The admitted position which emerges is that the heavy transport vehicle driving license was in a lapsed condition on the date of accident i.e 25.10.1999. When the Tribunal recorded these concrete facts and the fact of the non-renewal of the license on the date of accident, the Tribunal could not have recorded the finding that the driver of bus was eligible to drive the bus on the date of accident and thus, the liability to pay the compensation could not have been fastened on the Insurance Company in light of the judgment in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari vs United India Insurance Company Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "Para 18. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that only in the event an application for renewal of licence is filed within a period 30 days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would be renewed automatically which means that even if an accident had taken place within the aforementioned period, the driver may be held to be possessing a valid licence. The proviso appended to Sub-section (1) of Section 15, however, clearly states that the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal in the event the application for renewal of a licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry. It is, therefore, evident that as, on renewal of the licence on such terms, the driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be holding a valid licence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured." 7. Therefore, Issue No.3 is decided in favour of the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is held not liable to pay the compensation in the present case. In such circumstances, while applying the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh reported in 2004 DNJ (SC) 154, it is ordered that the compensation will be first paid by the appellant-Insurance Company in this case and will have right to recover the same in accordance with law. 8. As far as the cross objections of the injured Ashok Kumar is concerned, the cross objectioner received three grievous injuries for which he was hospitalized for a period of about seven days. The amount of Rs.63,000/- awarded in the present case appears to be on the lower side and a lump-sum amount of Rs.25,000/- is directed to be paid to the injured Ashok Kumar for the injuries suffered. 9. Thus, the present appeal as well as cross objection are disposed of with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the amount as ordered by the Tribunal as well as the enhanced amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 26.02.2003 within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the same is paid. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 26.02.2003 within a period of six weeks from today. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the same is paid. The amount paid by the Insurance Company will be recovered from the driver and owner if they feel so advised strictly in accordance with law. 10. The apportionment of the payment of compensation as ordered by the Tribunal is maintained.