IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented By Its Regional Manager – Petitioner
Versus
Mrs Manjuara Bewa, W/o. Late Rohim Badsha And Ors. – Respondents
MAC App. No.748 Of 2018
Decided On : 01-08-2024
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - COMPENSATION - The court addressed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 149(2)(a)(ii), which pertains to the liability of insurance companies in cases where the driver lacks a valid driving license. The court emphasized the beneficial nature of the legislation aimed at compensating victims of motor vehicle accidents, leading to the decision that the insurance company must pay compensation while retaining the right to recover from the vehicle owner if the driver was unlicensed.
Fact of the Case:
Rahim Badsha died in a bus accident on 14.04.2012 when he was thrown out of a bus that lost control. He was a daily wage earner with a monthly income of Rs.9,000 and left behind a family. A claim for compensation was filed against the insurance company of the bus.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found that the insurance company could not verify the driver's license status due to lack of information in the claim petition. However, it ruled that the bus owner allowed an unlicensed driver to operate the vehicle, leading to the insurance company's liability for compensation.
Issues: Whether the driver had a valid driving license at the time of the accident and the implications of this on the insurance company's liability for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates compensation to victims, and the insurance company is liable to pay unless it can prove the driver's valid license, which the owner must establish.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the direction for the insurance company to pay Rs.10,22,068/- in compensation, with the right to recover from the vehicle owner, and modification of the interest on future prospects.
JUDGMENT :
(Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.) :
Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel representing the appellant as well as Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 26.03.2018, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No.1006 of 2012.
3. On 14.04.2012 at about 8.20 A.M., Rahim Badsha was travelling in a Bus bearing Registration No.ML-06-0828. The bus was coming from Shallang in West Khasi Hills, Meghalaya towards Assam. At Rongberam, the driver of the bus lost control of the bus and Rahim Badsha was thrown out of the bus. He came under the rear tyres of the bus and died instantly. Late Rahim Badsha was 27 years old and working as a daily wage earner and as a part-time businessman. He used to earn Rs.9,000/-per month. The deceased left behind his wife, son and parents.
4. A claim application was filed before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
5. The appellant Insurance Company had contested the claim application by filing written statements. Apart from other claims, the Insurance Company had pleaded that pursuant to the provision of law as laid down in Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since in the claim petition and the particulars of the driving licence of the offending bus was not mentioned and therefore, it could not verify its validity.
6. In the additional written statement, the Insurance Company had pleaded that it came to know that the driver Ganesh Ray, of the offending vehicle, did not have valid driving license on the day of the accident.
7. The Tribunal did not frame any issue as to whether the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence at the time of accident.
8. However, on the aforesaid point, the Tribunal held that there is no record to show that in spite of having knowledge that the driver of the bus was driving the bus without a valid driving license, it’s owner had allowed the driver to drive the vehicle.
9. Finally, the Tribunal directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a compensation of Rs.10,22,068/- along with interest.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
11. The provisions of law relating to payment of compensation to the victims of motor vehicle accidents are beneficial legislations. Therefore, the intention of the legislation is to be respected.
12. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Insurance Company shall have the liberty to recover the money from the owner of the offending vehicle. If the Insurance Company proceeds to recover the money from the owner of the offending vehicle, then the owner shall have to prove that the driver Ganesh Ray who was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. ML-06-0828 on 14.04.2012, had a valid driving licence.
13. It is further directed that since the Tribunal had erroneously directed the Insurance Company to pay interest upon the money relating to future prospect, that part of the impugned judgment is modified. The Insurance Company need not pay interest on the money relating to future prospect.
14. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands disposed. Send back the LCR.
The insurance company is liable to compensate victims of motor vehicle accidents unless it can prove that the driver was unlicensed, which the vehicle owner must establish.
The court upheld the insurer's liability for compensation in a fatal accident despite challenges to the driver's license and policy conditions, recalibrating the compensation amount based on income a....
The court established that contractual engagement with a transport corporation can negate permit requirements, and the burden of proof lies with the insurance company to demonstrate any licensing vio....
The Insurance Company bears the burden to prove the driver's lack of a valid license to avoid liability for compensation in motor accident claims.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the impact of the driver's lapsed license on the liability of the Insurance Company in a motor accident claim.
The insurance company must provide evidence to support its claims, and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the appeal.
The onus of proof regarding the validity of the driving license and authorization to drive the vehicle remains with the insurance company, and the violation of insurance policy terms cannot be presum....
The Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation unless it proves the driver lacked a valid driving license, which was not substantiated in this case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.