Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, AIZAWL BENCH
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Smt. Mawizuali W/o K. Lalremmawia & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Smt. K. Lalthaengi W/o Chaldailova & Anr. - Respondents
MAC Appl. No. 01 of 2016
Decided On : 27-06-2016
For the Appellants : Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, Ms. Vapawngia, Mr. K. Lalchhanhima
For the Respondents: Mr. Lalfakawma, Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - sub-section (2)(a)(ii), 149, 10 , 3, 4 and 5 - Counsel for appellant - Also heard counsel for respondent owner of Alto Car - Present appeal has been filed against Judgment & Award passed by learned MACT, in MACT Case by which claim of appellant for compensation has been dismissed - Learned Tribunal has however, given liberty to claimant to file a fresh claim against Driver of offending vehicle - Brief facts of case is that one Scooty bearing Registration driven by decease was hit from behind by one Alto Car bearing Registration - Accident, rider of expired - Opinion rider did not suffer any serious injury from accident – Held, Case of United India Insurance Company Limited and others to the extent that the drivers of the offending vehicles are both under age and not having driving license - Court find that driver of offending vehicle was not made a party in claim petition - Evidence of driver of offending vehicle would be crucial to come to a finding - Whether owner of vehicle was liable to pay compensation - In case of Oriental Insurance reported in Apex Court held that Insurance Company was not liable in respect of an accident caused by driver of offending vehicle, who had not been issued any license by licensing authority - In view of fact that there has been a breach of condition of contract of Insurance, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to claimants - Also, in view of fact that learned Tribunal has given liberty to file a fresh claim against driver of offending vehicle, this Court does not find any infirmity with Judgment of Award passed in MACT Case - Appeal is accordingly dismissed
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, counsel for the respondent No. 1 i.e. the owner of the Alto Car No. MZ-01 K-9701.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment & Award dated 1.4.2016 passed by the learned MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 25 of 2015, by which the claim of the appellant for compensation has been dismissed. The learned Tribunal has however, given liberty to the claimant to file a fresh claim against the Driver of offending vehicle, i.e. Alto Car No. MZ-01 K-9701.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 12.1.2015, one Scooty bearing Registration No. MZ-01 K-3200 driven by the deceased Vanlalchhanchhuaha was hit from behind by one Alto Car bearing Registration No. MZ-01 K-9701. As a result of the accident, the rider of the Scooty i.e. Vanlalchhanchhuaha expired. However, the pinion rider did not suffer any serious injury from the accident.
4. The mother of the deceased thereafter, filed MACT Case No. 25 of 2015 claiming compensation for the death of her son and impleaded the present respondent No. 1 and the National Insurance Company Limited as party in the claim petition.
5. The learned Tribunal thereafter, dismissed the claim of the appellant on the ground that the driver of the offending Alto Car namely, Jerome V.L. Chhanchhuaha had not been made a party in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal also came to a finding that the driver of the Alto Car was under age at the relevant time and did not have a driving license.
6. The appellants counsel submits that learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the Insurance Company was not liable inasmuch as, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation is even if the driver of the vehicle is under age and does not have a driving license. In this respect, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Padma Khaklari Vs. Sujit Kumar Roy and Ors. reported in 2006 (1) TAC 379 (GAU), Judgment of the Apex Court in S. Iyyapan Vs. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2013 (3) TAC 392 (SC) and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh & ors. reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297.
7. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the respondent No. 1 was not aware that the driver of the Alto Car, who is her son, had taken the vehicle. The learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 1 did not give any permission to her son to drive the said vehicle.
8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
9. In Padma Khaklari (Supra), the facts of the case is that the appellant was run over by a vehicle was standing on the side of the road and though the driver of the offending vehicle had appeared as opposite party No. 2. In the cause title of the impugned Judgment, the learned Tribunal was not sure whether the driver of the offending vehicle had been impleaded and proper notice served to him or not. Further the Court found that the Tribunal had not disposed of the application by the appellant for impleading the driver of the offending vehicle. Despite the above, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the appellants claim petition on the ground of non impleadment of the driver. The Division Bench of this Court had found that the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, no where provides that the driver of the vehicle is a necessary party to adjudicate the claim filed under the Act.
10. In the case of S. Iyyapan (supra), the Apex Court had held that:
"the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to the drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving license. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amou
