Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. - APPELLANT
Versus
Babruwan s/o Pralhad Wakure & others. - RESPONDENTS
FIRST APPEAL NO.3564 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6031/2008
FIRST APPEAL NO.3565 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6033/2008.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.4203 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6025/2008.
Decided on : 15th April, 2009
Insurance Company - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149, Section 149(2)(a), Section 149(2)(c), Section 149(2)(d), Section 149(2)(e), Section 149(2)(f), Section 149(2)(g), Section 149(2)(h), Section 149(2)(i), Section 149(2)(ii), Section 149(2)(iii), Section 149(2)(iv), Section 149(2)(v), Section 149(2)(vi), Section 149(2)(vii), Section 149(2)(viii), Section 149(2)(ix), Section 149(2)(x), Section 149(2)(xi), Section 149(2)(xii), Section 149(2)(xiii), Section 149(2)(xiv), Section 149(2)(xv), Section 149(2)(xvi), Section 149(2)(xvii), Section 149(2)(xviii), Section 149(2)(xix), Section 149(2)(xx), Section 149(2)(xxi), Section 149(2)(xxii), Section 149(2)(xxiii), Section 149(2)(xxiv), Section 149(2)(xxv), Section 149(2)(xxvi), Section 149(2)(xxvii), Section 149(2)(xxviii), Section 149(2)(xxix), Section 149(2)(xxx), Section 149(2)(xxxi), Section 149(2)(xxxii), Section 149(2)(xxxiii), Section 149(2)(xxxiv), Section 149(2)(xxxv), Section 149(2)(xxxvi), Section 149(2)(xxxvii), Section 149(2)(xxxviii), Section 149(2)(xxxix), Section 149(2)(xl), Section 149(2)(xli), Section 149(2)(xlii), Section 149(2)(xliii), Section 149(2)(xliv), Section 149(2)(xlv), Section 149(2)(xlvi), Section 149(2)(xlvii), Section 149(2)(xlviii), Section 149(2)(xlix), Section 149(2)(l), Section 149(2)(li), Section 149(2)(lii), Section 149(2)(liii), Section 149(2)(liv), Section 149(2)(lv), Section 149(2)(lvi), Section 149(2)(lvii), Section 149(2)(lviii), Section 149(2)(lix), Section 149(2)(lx), Section 149(2)(lxi), Section 149(2)(lxii), Section 149(2)(lxiii), Section 149(2)(lxiv), Section 149(2)(lxv), Section 149(2)(lxvi), Section 149(2)(lxvii), Section 149(2)(lxviii), Section 149(2)(lxix), Section 149(2)(lxx), Section 149(2)(lxxi), Section 149(2)(lxxii), Section 149(2)(lxxiii), Section 149(2)(lxxiv), Section 149(2)(lxxv), Section 149(2)(lxxvi), Section 149(2)(lxxvii), Section 149(2)(lxxviii), Section 149(2)(lxxix), Section 149(2)(lxxx), Section 149(2)(lxxxi), Section 149(2)(lxxxii), Section 149(2)(lxxxiii), Section 149(2)(lxxxiv), Section 149(2)(lxxxv), Section 149(2)(lxxxvi), Section 149(2)(lxxxvii), Section 149(2)(lxxxviii), Section 149(2)(lxxxix), Section 149(2)(xc), Section 149(2)(xci), Section 149(2)(xcii), Section 149(2)(xciii), Section 149(2)(xciv), Section 149(2)(xcv), Section 149(2)(xcvi), Section 149(2)(xcvii), Section 149(2)(xcviii), Section 149(2)(xcix), Section 149(2)(c), Section 149(2)(ci), Section 149(2)(cii), Section 149(2)(ciii), Section 149(2)(civ), Section 149(2)(cv), Section 149(2)(cvi), Section 149(2)(cvii), Section 149(2)(cviii), Section 149(2)(cix), Section 149(2)(cx), Section 149(2)(cxi), Section 149(2)(cxii), Section 149(2)(cxiii), Section 149(2)(cxiv), Section 149(2)(cxv), Section 149(2)(cxvi), Section 149(2)(cxvii), Section 149(2)(cxviii), Section 149(2)(cxix), Section 149(2)(cxx), Section 149(2)(cxxi), Section 149(2)(cxxii), Section 149(2)(cxxiii), Section 149(2)(cxxiv), Section 149(2)(cxxv), Section 149(2)(cxxvi), Section 149(2)(cxxvii), Section 149(2)(cxxviii), Section 149(2)(cxxix), Section 149(2)(cxxx), Section 149(2)(cxxxi), Section 149(2)(cxxxii), Section 149(2)(cxxxiii), Section 149(2)(cxxxiv), Section 149(2)(cxxxv), Section 149(2)(cxxxvi), Section 149(2)(cxxxvii), Section 149(2)(cxxxviii), Section 149(2)(cxxxix), Section 149(2)(cxl), Section 149(2)(cxli), Section 149(2)(cxlii), Section 149(2)(cxliii), Section 149(2)(cxliv), Section 149(2)(cxlv), Section 149(2)(cxlvi), Section 149(2)(cxlvii), Section 149(2)(cxlviii), Section 149(2)(cxliv), Section 149(2)(cl), Section 149(2)(cli), Section 149(2)(clii), Section 149(2)(cliii), Section 149(2)(cliv), Section 149(2)(clv), Section 149(2)(clvi), Section 149(2)(clvii), Section 149(2)(clviii), Section 149(2)(clix), Section 149(2)(clx), Section 149(2)(clxi), Section 149(2)(clxii), Section 149(2)(clxiii), Section 149(2)(clxiv), Section 149(2)(clxv), Section 149(2)(clxvi), Section 149(2)(clxvii), Section 149(2)(clxviii), Section 149(2)(clxix), Section 149(2)(clxx), Section 149(2)(clxxi), Section 149(2)(clxxii), Section 149(2)(clxxiii), Section 149(2)(clxxiv), Section 149(2)(clxxv), Section 149(2)(clxxvi), Section 149(2)(clxxvii), Section 149(2)(clxxviii), Section 149(2)(clxxix), Section 149(2)(clxxx), Section 149(2)(clxxxi), Section 149(2)(clxxxii), Section 149(2)(clxxxiii), Section 149(2)(clxxxiv), Section 149(2)(clxxxv), Section 149(2)(clxxxvi), Section 149(2)(clxxxvii), Section 149(2)(clxxxviii), Section 149(2)(clxxxix), Section 149(2)(cxc), Section 149(2)(cxci), Section 149(2)(cxcii), Section 149(2)(cxciii), Section 149(2)(cxciv), Section 149(2)(cxcv), Section 149(2)(cxcvi), Section 149(2)(cxcvii), Section 149(2)(cxcviii), Section 149(2)(cxcix), Section 149(2)(cl), Section 149(2)(cli), Section 149(2)(clii), Section 149(2)(cliii), Section 149(2)(cliv), Section 149(2)(clv), Section 149(2)(clvi), Section 149(2)(clvii), Section 149(2)(clviii), Section 149(2)(clix), Section 149(2)(clx), Section 149(2)(clxi), Section 149(2)(clxii), Section 149(2)(clxiii), Section 149(2)(clxiv), Section 149(2)(clxv), Section 149(2)(clxvi), Section 149(2)(clxvii), Section 149(2)(clxviii), Section 149(2)(clxix), Section 149(2)(clxx), Section 149(2)(clxxi), Section 149(2)(clxxii), Section 149(2)(clxxiii), Section 149(2)(clxxiv), Section 149(2)(clxxv), Section 149(2)(clxxvi), Section 149(2)(clxxvii), Section 149(2)(clxxviii), Section 149(2)(clxxix), Section 149(2)(clxxx), Section 149(2)(clxxxi), Section 149(2)(clxxxii), Section 149(2)(clxxxiii), Section 149(2)(clxxxiv), Section 149(2)(clxxxv), Section 149(2)(clxxxvi), Section 149(2)(clxxxvii), Section 149(2)(clxxxviii), Section 149(2)(clxxxix), Section 149(2)(cxc), Section 149(2)(cxci), Section 149(2)(cxcii), Section 149(2)(cxciii), Section 149(2)(cxciv), Section 149(2)(cxcv), Section 149(2)(cxcvi), Section 149(2)(cxcvii), Section 149(2)(cxcviii), Section 149(2)(cxcix), Section 149(2)(cl)
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a motor vehicle accident involving a jeep and a tractor with trollies. The insurance company contested the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, arguing that the drivers of the vehicles were at fault and that the damages were erroneously considered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver of the tractor was not at fault and that the insurance company failed to prove the breach of policy conditions by the jeep driver. The court also assessed the damages and dependency of the deceased and other claimants.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the driving licenses, negligence of the drivers, assessment of damages, and dependency of the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company must prove the breach of policy conditions by the driver and that the non-impleadment of the driver of the jeep was not fatal. The court also assessed the damages and dependency of the claimants based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the court found in favor of the claimants. No costs were awarded.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. These three appeals moved by Insurance Company arising out of the accident dated 17.12.2005, question legality and propriety of the order recorded by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur by Award dated 5th January, 2008 in M.A.C.P.Nos.107/2006; 108/2006 and 80/2006 respectively.
3. The extensive submissions by the Counsel for appellant center to the crucial aspect that the driver of the jeep, Majid Kazi had no valid licence on the date of accident, which he has renewed subsequently. Secondly, Balu Shrirang Ghante was driving his tractor attached with fully loaded two trollies with sugarcane. As per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specific motor driving licence is issued for driving a tractor attached with trolly or trollies. However, the tractor driver had only a driving licence to drive light vehicle. The damages to the tractor were erroneously considered, documents were not properly proved. It is not established that the driver of the jeep was at fault. The jeep driver was not made a party. The Insurance Company of the tractor was not made as a party. The claimants in First Appeal No.4203/2008 (M.A.C.P.No.80/2006) were entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as deceased Ashok was travelling in the jeep and covered for that amount only.
4. The Counsel for the respondents pointed that the deficiency, if any, in the tractor or its driver will not be available to be argued as it is not open to the insurance company. Even the Written Statement is silent. Insurance Company did not prove, the driver of the jeep had no valid licence or that it was not renewed. The breach of terms of Policy should be proved. However, the Insurance Company did not step in. The jeep driver continued to hold licence on its renewal.
5. On 17.12.2005, there was head-on collision between jeep bearing registration No.MH-25/B-656 with the tractor registration No.MH-25/B-1550. The accident has taken place at a curve, where the driver of jeep could not control the vehicle and dashed against the tractor, which, in fact, had suffered to a large extent by damages. The driver of the jeep has faced a criminal case.
6. The copy of F.I.R. (Exhibit-40), Spot panchanama (Exh. 41) and the photographs at the scene of offence having perused indicate the velocity with which the jeep was moving. The tractor was coming from opposite side. The tractor though was attached with two trollies, was moving at extreme left side of the road proceeding towards Latur in moderate speed. At the place of accident, there was curve. Though width of the road is sufficient to cover more than 2-3 vehicles, the impact caused by the jeep was directly on the tractor, which is apparent from the map attached to the spot panchanama (Exhibit-41). The spot situation and evidence leaves no doubt that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the tractor to attribute any negligence to him. The driving of the tractor with two trollies or without any valid permit to do so, will be of no consequence against the driver. The non-impleadment of insurance company of the tractor in this backdrop is not fatal.
7. It is not established by the insurance company that there was breach of the terms of the insurance policy by the jeep driver. The insurance company did not prove that the licence of the jeep driver was not in force having expired on 17.12.2005. The insurance company, did not examine the concerned officials from the Transport Licensing Authority. Reliance placed to the xerox copy of the licence, by itself will not be sufficient, as firstly the xerox copy is blurred and difficult to read its contents, I could not read it, nor counsel could show the dates, and secondly, it is not legally proved. Its placing on record by the claimants having got it from police, by itself will not be admission to proof of such licence. It is contended Majid Kazi, the driver, had renewed the licence after the accident. These questions of fac
AI
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
