IMPORTANT POINT
In case death is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck, owner alone would be liable to pay compensation.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Kishan Lal (deceased) was traveling in a truck bearing registration No.HP-11-1448 on 16.3.2000. He was aged about 27 years. He was unmarried. The said truck met with an accident. First respondent being the mother of the deceased filed an application for payment of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (The Act). Appellant was served with a notice. One of the objections taken by it was that the driver of the truck did not possess any valid or effective driving licence and that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger on the truck which was a goods carriage.

3. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- by way of compensation. An appeal was preferred thereagainst before the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, whereas the contention of the appellant-insurance company was upheld, having regard to the fact that the amount awarded in favour of the first respondent had already been deposited, it was directed to be released in favour of the claimant with liberty to the insurance company to recover the said amount along with interest from the owner by filing an appropriate application for execution before the Tribunal without being required to file a separate suit.

4. Both the insurance company as also the owner of the truck are, thus, before us.

5. Shri S.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company, would submit that as the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and as the driver of the vehicle was not possessing an effective driving licence, the High Court should not have passed the impugned order.

6. Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, on the other hand, would contend that the deceased was a vegetable vendor and he had been travelling in the truck for collecting the empty boxes and, thus, he was not a gratuitous passenger. In any event, it was urged, as the insurance company has already deposited the amount of compensation, the right to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle need not have been granted.

7. The Tribunal, having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, framed the following issues :

“1. Whether deceased Shri Krishan Lal had died due to the rash and negligent driving of Shri Shyam Lal, driver of truck No.HP-11-1448, as alleged? ...OPP.

2. If issue No.1 supra is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from which of the respondents? ..OPP

3. Whether the truck driver did not have valid driving licence on the date of accident, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR.3.

4. Whether the documents i.e. route permit, R.C. and fitness certificate of the truck, in question, were not valid on the date of accident as alleged? ...OPR.3

5. Relief.”

8. It was opined by the Tribunal that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It was furthermore held that the truck in question was insured with the appellant insurance company, but it had not been proved that the driver was not having any valid driving licence. With regard to the contention that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, it was held :

“The evidence, on record, which has been led by the petitioner would go to show that the deceased was traveling in the truck, in question, for bringing empty vegetable boxes. Further, even if it is taken that the deceased was traveling in the truck as unauthorized person, even then, under the existing law, the insurance company cannot avoid the liability in question. Therefore, the plea raised by the learned Advocate for the insurance company does not have any force.”

9. The High Court, however, held that the driving licence of the Driver Shyam Lal was not valid, stating :

“Since I am of the opinion that the endorsement permitting Shyam Lal to drive heavy goods vehicle was ante dated and was not existing on the date of accident it is clear that the owner could not have hande