IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the owner under the Motor Vehicles Act, the powers of the Claims Tribunal, and the role of the Insurance Company in defending claim petitions.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 03.11.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.-2), Gandhidham-Kachchh in M.A.C.P. No.385 of 2012.

2. Heard learned Advocate for the appellants Mr. Nilesh

M. Shah, who submitted that the appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased – Laxmansinh Madanji Sodha, the owner of the Truck No.GJ-12-Y-7345 who was opponent No.2 before the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the deceased died on 09.09.2016 and probably this fact may not have been known to the learned Tribunal and in absence of the owner, the M.A.C.P. has been decided wherein the liability has been laid down on the deceased owner. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal was required to call for the details from the Investigating Officer by following the provisions of Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to in short as the ‘M.V. Act’) or information under Form 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal should verify the fact of the availability of the Driving License of respondent No.1 since without the driving license, the owner would not have permitted the Driver to drive the Truck which in this case is Truck No.GJ-12-Y-7345.

3. It is further submitted that the Driver of the Truck was holding a valid license of the heavy goods vehicle. Referring to the extract of the Driving License issued by RTO, Bhuj, Kutch, it is submitted that the respondent No.1 – Raghubha Vishanji Sodha, the Driver on the Truck was holding a valid and effective Driving License on the date of accident, i.e. 14.08.2012. Referring to the copy of the Receipt issued by the Regional Transport Office, Bhuj dated 16.07.2012, it is submitted that the driving license was renewed from 18.07.2012 to 03.07.2015, which covered the date of accident, i.e. 14.08.2012. It is also submitted that the driver was holding a License for transport as well as non-transport vehicle and the endorsement in the extract of the Driving License shows that he was holding a valid and effective license of transport vehicle till 03.07.2015.

4. It is also submitted that the liability has been laid down on the owner with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It is also submitted that had the heirs of the owner of the vehicle been joined as a party to the matter, they could have placed the Driving License of the driver on record and further stated that the Insurance Company did not examine the Driver to verify the said fact of his authority to drive the truck.

5. Heard the submissions canvassed as above and perused the records of the case. It is required to be mentioned that Section 155 of the M.V. Act provides that incase of death of a person, in whose favour a Certificate of Insurance has been issued, if it occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to a claim under the provisions of this Chapter, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of such event against his estate or against the insurer. Hence the cause of action on the death of the owner would continue against the estate of the Policy holder. The liability had been laid down on the owner, observing breach of condition that the driver was not holding a valid and effective license on the date of accident.

6. The learned Tribunal in absence of the driver or the owner to agitate the issue before the Court, should have called for the information from the Investigating Officer in accordance to the provision of Section 166 sub-section (4) of the M.V. Act and such report of the accident forwarded to the learned Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the M.V. Act could have clarified the fact of availability of the license on the date of accident. Further had the learned Tribunal followed the directions laid down