Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 107
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.MANIKUMAR
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GOBICHETTYPALAYAM - Appellant
Versus
K.N.GURUNATHAN - Respondent
Decided On : 01/29/2007
C. M. A. 215 Of 2001
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles – Accident – Injuries and Fracture in his leg – Compensation granted – Appeal filed by insurance company – When Liable – He claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ -.Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that second respondent was responsible for accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 72,724/- with interest at rate of 12% per annum from date of claim till date of realization – Heard Mr. K. S. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for appellant, and Mr. T. Murugamanickam, learned counsel for first respondent – Learned counsel for appellant submitted that Tribunal has failed to consider that even in claim petition, vehicle was described as "articulated vehicle" Tractor and Trailer and it is evident from Ex. P5, Motor Vehicles Inspection Report, that the vehicle was a Heavy Motor Vehicle. Considering the above evidence – Held, Decision reported in 1997 ACJ 1083 (supra) is not applicable to facts of case, inasmuch as RW. 1 himself had admitted that driver had the valid licence – Even otherwise, as per decisions of Apex Court in 2004 ACJ 1 (supra) and 2006 ACJ 2161 (supra), insurer is not absolved of their liability, as there is no evidence to prove that insurance company had taken any steps to fulfill conditions in Sub Para (iii) of Para 102 of judgment – In view of above, I do not find any error in judgment of Tribunal and same is confirmed – Quantum of compensation is not challenged in this appeal and therefore, it is sustained – This Court by order has permitted the respondent/claimant to withdraw 50% of amount deposited to credit of M. C. O. P. on file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub Judge), Bhavani, without furnishing any security and balance 50% has been re-invested in Fixed Deposit in Indian Bank at Bhavani for three years and renewed thereafter – Respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw said amount after making necessary application before Tribunal – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
( 2 ) IN an accident, which occurred on 25. 04. 1994, the first respondent/claimant sustained fracture in his leg. He claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. The Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the second respondent was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 72,724/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation.
( 3 ) HEARD Mr. K. S. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. T. Murugamanickam, learned counsel for the first respondent.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that even in the claim petition, the vehicle was described as "articulated vehicle" Tractor and Trailer and it is evident from Ex. P5, Motor Vehicles Inspection Report, that the vehicle was a Heavy Motor Vehicle. Considering the above evidence, the Tribunal ought to have arrived at a conclusion that the driver had no valid licence to drive Heavy Motor Vehicle and exonerated the appellant-Insurance Company from their liability. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the decision of the Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , v. Gian Chand and others [1997 ACJ 1065].
( 5 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, the Assistant Administrative officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW. 1 and he deposed that the offending vehicle insured with the insurance company was a Heavy Motor Vehicle. Ex. B1 Policy and Ex. B2 Investigation report were marked on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company. It is evident from Ex. B2, Investigation Report that the driver of the offending vehicle was issued with Class "c" driving licence to drive a Tractor.
( 6 ) THE respondent/claimant deposed that on 25. 04. 1994, when he was standing on the left side of the road, the second respondent's tractor hit him and he sustained grievous injuries. A compliant was lodged against the driver of the tractor. Ex. P1 is the First Information Report, dated 25. 04. 1994. It is evident from Ex. P3, Judgment copy of the criminal Court that the driver of the tractor also admitted his guilt and paid the fine. It is admitted by the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was only Tractor and that the driver had a valid licence to drive Tractor. The manner of accident and the nature of injures were not disputed.
( 7 ) IN a decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , v. Gian Chand, reported in 1997 ACJ 1083, the insured had handed over the vehicle for being driver by an unlicensed driver, the Apex Court held that the Insurance Company would get exonerated from its liability to meet the claims of third party on account of vehicular accident accused by such unlicensed driver.
( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in Natwar Parikh Co. Ltd. , v. Stateof karnataka and others reported in 2006 ACJ 1, has held that when the Tractor and Trailor combined would constitute "a goods carriage" and necessitate a permit for its use on road. The Apex Court further held that the State is empowered to levy tax on all the vehicles which are designed and manufactured for use on the road. The case on hand relates to claim for compensation and therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case.
( 9 ) IN National Insurance Co. Ltd. , v. Swaran Singh, reported in 2004 ACJ 1, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 102 (iii) is as follows:
"the breach of policy conditions, e. g. , disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in Sub-Section (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant ti
