Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 710
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Yashwant Tak - Appellant
Versus
Abida & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1960/2014
Decided on : 29-04-2021
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, for the Appellant; Mr. K.R. Meghwal, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act provisions regarding liability for accidents and the liability of insurance companies, as well as the application of relevant case law in determining liability.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Appeal - Section 173 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, Section 173 - The court discussed the liability and negligence for the accident under Section 2(21), 2(15), 2(48), and 10(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also referred to the judgment in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663 and Jagdish Kumar Sood V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. - Civil Appeal No.240/2017.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The case involved a fatal accident caused by a rash and negligent driver of a tempo, resulting in the death of a motorcycle rider. The tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants and held the driver liable, while exonerating the insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the driver of the tempo liable for the accident and awarded compensation to the claimants. It also held the insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, overturning the tribunal's decision to exonerate the insurance company.
Issues: The issues included liability/negligence for the accident, quantum of compensation, and liability to pay the compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and interpreted the definitions of 'transport vehicle' and 'light motor vehicle' to determine the liability of the driver and the insurance company. It also referenced relevant case law to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the liability to pay compensation was jointly and severally fastened on the insurer in addition to the registered owner and driver.
Key Points: - The tribunal initially exonerated the Insurance Company from liability; the appellate court held insurer jointly and severally liable with owner/driver. (!) - The judgment discusses the interpretation of "transport vehicle" and "light motor vehicle" under Sections 2(21), 2(15), 2(48), and how these relate to license eligibility under Section 10(2)(d). (!) (!) - Reliance on Mukund Dewangan (2017) and Jagdish Kumar Sood (2018/2017) to hold insurer liable when the vehicle is a transport vehicle or omnibus with a light motor vehicle license; confirms liability of insurer alongside owner/driver. (!) (!) (!) - The appellate court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal’s absolution of the insurer and holding liability to be joint and several. (!) (!)
What is the liability of insurer vs. owner/driver under the Motor Vehicles Act in a case involving a transport vehicle (tempo) with a light motor vehicle license?
What is the interpretation of "transport vehicle" and "light motor vehicle" for liability and the applicability of Sections 2(21), 2(15), and 2(48) in determining who pays compensation?
How does Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) influence whether the insurer can be held jointly and severally liable alongside the owner and driver?
JUDGMENT
1. The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act on behalf of the appellant, driver/owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., Tempo bearing registration No. RJ-10/PA 2911, against the judgment and award dated 27.09.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh, District Churu in Claim Case No. 44/2011 titled as "Mohd. Ayub & Ors. Vs. Yashwant Tak & Anr." whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,23,000/- in favour of the claimants and the appellant was ordered to pay the compensation, while exonerating the Insurance Company of its liability to satisfy the award.
2. Briefly put the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on the fateful day of 04.12.2011 at 5:45 p.m. when the deceased Mohd. Jabid @ Bablu S/o Mohd. Ayub was going to Bidasar then, on Khanpur road, the tempo in question coming from Sujangarh driven rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle and as a result of the accident, Jabid @ Bablu, who ride the motorcycle, sustained injuries on his head and succumbed to death; the driver of the tempo was Yashwant Tak; the head lights of the tempo were not on; in this accident, Akbar AN and Khalil were also injured; FIR No. 260/2011 in regard to this accident was lodged at Police Station Ladnu. It was also stated that the deceased was 22 years in age and earned Rs.12,000/- per month. In the accident, the watch was also broken, expenses was also incurred in treatment; the owner and driver of tempo was non-applicant No.1 Yashwant Tak.
3. In reply filed on behalf of the non-applicant No.1 Yashwant Tak, most of the facts were not admitted and reply of denial was filed by the appellant. It was submitted that the claim petition is not presented in prescribed proforma; it was also submitted that the vehicle was driven as per the terms of the insurance policy and, therefore, Insurance Company is liable. It was lastly submitted that the claim petition may be dismissed.
4. In reply filed on behalf of the non-applicant No.2 Insurance Company, it was submitted that the tempo in question was insured under passenger caring three wheeler liability only policy; it was not known to the insurance company that at the time of alleged accident, the driver of the vehicle himself was insured Yashwant Tak; it was also submitted that no proof regarding income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per month was adduced; the mother, father, brothers and sisters cannot be treated as dependents upon the deceased; the tempo in question was not involved in the accident; that the motorcycle was driven negligently; that due to negligence of motorcycle rider himself, he fell down and died; that for the reason of submitting charge-sheet against the tempo driver before the concerned Court, insured vehicle cannot be treated to be involved in the accident; that by rigidity, the claim petition was presented.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, as narrated in the claim petition and replies, the learned Tribunal has proceeded to frame as many as four issues which read as under:-
6. In support of claim petition, on behalf of claimants, in oral evidence AW-1 Shahnaz and AW-2 Mohd. Khalil were examined and in documentary evidence, written report (Ex.1). FIR (Ex.2), Charge-sheet (Ex.3), site plan (Ex.4), Driving License (Ex.5), Insurance (Ex.6), RC of tempo (Ex.7), P.M.R. (Ex.8), Notice under Section 133 of the MV Act (Ex.9), MTO Report of tempo (Ex.10), MTO Report of motorcycle (Ex.11), Recovery Memo of tempo (Ex.12), Recovery Memo of motorcycle (Ex.13), Passport in-original (Ex.14) and its photocopy (Ex.l4-A) were adduced. On behalf of non-applicant No.2 Insurance Company, the statement of NAW-1 Rajkumar Mishra was recorded and as documentary evidence, Insurance Policy (NA/1), Verification Report of DL issued by DTO, Churu (NA/2), Report of Manoj Sharma (NA/3), Report of Manoj Sharma regarding inquiry of accident (NA/4), Receipt of DTO (NA/5) were adduced and exhibited.
7.
