Back
2009(3) Supreme 26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Uttarakhand High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Bhuwan Singh — Appellant
versus
M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1537 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20101 of 2008]
Decided on : 05-03-2009
(2004) 3 SCC 297 – Relied upon.
(b) Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 – Rule 14 – Provision for renewal of licence – There cannot be any automatic renewal of (learner’s) licence. (Para 14)
(2008) 8 SCC 165 – Relied upon.
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof regarding a valid licence as also that some other person was driving the vehicle was on the appellant – He did not discharge that burden. (Para 16)
(d) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 149 – Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation only if the accident is covered by the terms of the policy. (Para 19)
(e) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 58 – Facts admitted need not to be proved. (Para 20)
Facts of the case :
1. Appellant’s tractor hit Paras Gubbar (deceased), son of Shri Harish Chandra Gubbar while he was riding on a cycle. He was aged about 19 years. He sustained an injury on his head and died on the spot.
2. His legal heirs and representatives filed a claim petition. An award of Rs.1,32,000/- was passed in favour of the said applicants/claimants.
3. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court :
On the relevant date the appellant was not duly licensed. Insurance company is not liable.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 3-04-2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Appeal From Order No. 589 of 2006.
3. Appellant is the owner of a tractor bearing No. UA06/0363. It hit Paras Gubbar (deceased), son of Shri Harish Chandra Gubbar while he was riding on a cycle. He was aged about 19 years. He sustained an injury on his head and died on the spot.
His legal heirs and representatives filed a claim petition before Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Nainital which was registered as M.A.C.P. No.86 of 2001. An award of Rs.1,32,000/- was passed in favour of the said applicants/claimants. In the said proceedings, appellant inter alia raised a plea that the tractor was being driven by one Diwan Singh and the appellant being the owner thereof was sitting by his side whereafter he ran away. Villagers stopped the vehicle and a first information report was lodged against him alleging that he had been driving the same rashly and negligently.
4. It was, furthermore, stated that the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited under Policy Cover No. 58226 for the period 5-11-2000 and 4-11-2001.
The insurance company, on the other hand, raised a contention that as the driver of the said tractor was not holding a valid and effective licence, it had no liability to reimburse the owner or the driver for the damages payable by the owner of the vehicle to the claimants-respondents.
5. The learned Tribunal, inter alia, framed the following issues:
“(1) Whether the rash and negligent driving by the driver of tractor no. UA 06/0363 on 5.1.2001 resulted in the accident causing death of Paras Gubbar and whether on the said date the tractor was owned by the respondent no. 1 and was insured with by the respondent no. 2 the insurance company?
(2) Whether the petitioner suffered damage on account of the said accident and deserved to be compensated, if yes, to what extent and from which party?
(3) Whether the petition is maintainable or suffers from non joinder of necessary party has stated by the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 in their replies?
(4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief?”
6. An award of Rs. 1,32,000/- was passed in favour of the claimants. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned Judgment.
7. Ms. Rachna Joshi Issar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit :
(i) No issue having been framed despite a specific plea having been raised by the appellant that he had not been driving the tractor, the tribunal and consequently the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment.
(ii) Appellant at the relevant time must be held to have been holding an effective licence as he had been granted a learner’s licence earlier, the finding of the Tribunal and consequently the High Court exonerating the insurance company from its liability to reimburse the owner in respect of the awarded amount suffers from serious legal infirmity.
(iii) Having regard to the statutory duties imposed upon the insurance company to reimburse the owner of the vehicle or driver as provided for in Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the impugned judgment must be held to be unsustainable.
(iv) The insurance company having not proved breaches of conditions of contract of insurance as has been held by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors.1 [(2004) 3 SCC 297], the High Court must be held to have committed a serious error of law in passing the impugned judgment.
8. Respondent-Insurance Company, on the other hand, would contend :
(i) Appellant cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any manner by non-framing of a specific issue as to whether the tractor was being driven by the appellant or Diwan Singh.
(ii) A finding of fact having been arrived at, that the owner of the vehicl
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
