Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 646 (RAJ)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rinki Arora

2021-03-18

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dtd. 17/9/2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in Motor Accident Claim Case No.118/2001 (81/96) whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1, 83, 230.00 as compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent with an interest @ 9% p.a. on account of the injuries sustained by the respondent No.1 in the accident which occurred on 6/2/1996. 3. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the claim petition of the respondent No.1 vide its judgment and award dtd. 17/9/2001 and awarded a sum of Rs.1, 83, 230.00 as compensation to the claimant-respondent No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that admitted facts in the case are that on 6/2/1996, the accident occurred at 09:00 AM. The driver of the Tractor namely Dana Ram was holding a learning license. Dana Ram went to the office of Transport Department on 6/2/1996 after 10:00 AM. On the application preferred by Dana Ram (driver of tractor), on 6/2/1996, a permanent driving license was issued to him by the Transport Department. He, therefore, submits that admittedly the permanent driving license was issued by the Transport Department after timing of the accident. Therefore, the date of license cannot be made effective from midnight of 5-6/2/1996. He further submits that for all intentional purposes, the permanent driving license was issued by the transport department after the accident on 6/2/1996. It is further contended that as per the insurance policy, the driver of the tractor was not holding the requisite driving license at the time of the accident. Therefore, in these circumstances, the liability to pay compensation to the claimant-respondent No.1 cannot be fastened on the appellant Insurance Company. It is also contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal has already been paid to the claimant. In the circumstances, the appellant may be given right to recover the amount paid from the driver and owner of the Tractor and thus, the counsel, therefore, prays that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 may be quashed and set aside. 5. In the circumstances, the appellant may be given right to recover the amount paid from the driver and owner of the Tractor and thus, the counsel, therefore, prays that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant- respondent No.1 submits that the Tribunal has correctly evaluated the evidence available on record. It is contended that the driver of the tractor was holding a learning license issued by the competent authority of transport department on 22/1/1996 and thereafter, a permanent driving license was issued to him on 6/2/1996. The driver of the tractor was fully eligible to drive the tractor at the time of the accident. Thus, the liability to pay compensation has been rightly fastened upon the insurance company. However, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1 is not in a position to dispute the fact regarding the date, time of the accident and issuance of permanent driving license to the driver of the tractor in the present case. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal has already been disbursed to the claimant-respondent, therefore, it will be only an academic exercise to deliberate on the issues in the present case. 6. I have heard the submissions made at the bar, gone through the judgment and award dtd. 17/9/2001 passed by the Tribunal and also perused relevant record of the case. The admitted facts in the case are that the driver of the Tractor was holding a learning license to drive the light motor vehicle issued by the transport department on 22/1/1996. The learning license was valid for a period of six months. The accident occurred on 09:00 AM on 6/2/1996 in which injuries were sustained by the claimant-respondent No.1. On 6/2/1996, the Driver of the Tractor namely Dana Ram approached the transport department by way of filing an application for issuance of permanent driving license to drive the light motor vehicle. As per the statement of Prabhu Singh (NAW1), the office of transport department opens at 10:00 AM, therefore, there was no question of issuance of permanent license to the driver of the Tractor prior to 10: 00 Am on 6/2/1996. As per the statement of Prabhu Singh (NAW1), the office of transport department opens at 10:00 AM, therefore, there was no question of issuance of permanent license to the driver of the Tractor prior to 10: 00 Am on 6/2/1996. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that permanent driving license was issued to the respondent No.2 on 6/2/1996 after the accident had taken place, therefore, the same cannot have retrospective effect from midnight of 05-6/2/1996. 7. It is a matter of common prudence that if the permanent driving license has been issued during working hours on 6/2/1996, the same cannot have retrospective effect from earlier point of time than issuance of the same by the competent authority. It is not a case where the transport department has made the permanent license effective from the date earlier than 6/2/1996. Therefore, by treating the license to be effective from "00" hours of 6/2/1996 is laconic and incorrect. The finding recorded by the tribunal on issue No.3 with regard to permanent license being effective from "00" hours of 6/2/1996 is not sustainable and therefore, same is quashed and set aside. 8. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and in view of the discussions made above, it is held that the respondent No.2 was not holding a requisite license for driving the tractor on the date of the accident, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation amount in the present case. Since it is a case of violation of insurance policy and the insurance company has already satisfied the award by paying the compensation amount to the claimant-respondent No.1, therefore, the appellant insurance company shall be free to recover the amount paid from the driver/ owner strictly in accordance with law.