JUDGMENT :

S.B. CMA No.1101/2001:

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 25.08.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal” for short) in MAC case No.132/1996, whereby the claim application filed by the respondents-claimants on account of the death of grand-father of the respondents-claimants, namely, Laxmi Narayan in a road accident, which was occurred on 11.08.1995, was partly allowed and they were granted total compensation of Rs.82,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 09.01.1996.

2. The appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court assailing the award, whereby the learned Tribunal has held that the non-claimants Nos. 1 to 3 are liable to indemnify the award amount jointly and severely.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 11.08.1995 at about 7:30 P.M., when deceased Laxmi Narayan was walking at Dabok to Udaipur Road, then near the road of Vidya Peeth Office, a vehicle bearing No.RJH-643 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle” for short), which was being driven by the driver of the offending vehicle Sh. Ganesh Lal rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased Laxmi Narayan, resulting into sustaining grievous injuries and ultimately died.

4. After notice to the non-claimants No. 1 and 2 (driver and owner) since they did not turn up, therefore, their right to file reply to the claim petition was closed by the learned Tribunal.

5. On behalf of the non-claimant No.3 (appellant-Insurance Company herein), reply to the claim petition was filed denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was specifically submitted on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the date of accident was 11.08.1995 and on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :

^^1- vk;k fnukad 1-8-95 dks x.ks'kyky pkyd us vkj-ts-,p-&643 dks pykdj y{ehyky ds VDdj ekjh vkSj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh vksj mDr nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k y{eh ukjk;.k dh e`R;q dkfjr gwbZ\
2- vk;k izkFkhZx.k Dyse esa crk;h x;h jkf'k 2]03]500@& ;k vU; dksbZ jkf'k izfrdj esa foi{khx.k ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS vkSj ;fn gka rks fdruh o fdl fdl ls\
3- vk;k foi{kh la[;k 3 }kjk viuh mRrj esa mBk;h x;h vkifRr ds vk/kkj ij mldh dksbZ ns;rk ugha gS\
4- nknljh\**

7. On behalf of the claimants, one witness was examined and as many as seven documents were got exhibited. On the other hand, on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company two witnesses were examined and as many as seven documents were exhibited.

8. After completion of the trial, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award and awarded a sum of Rs.82,000/-as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum with further finding that the appellant-Insurance Company also liable to indemnify the award amount.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the driving licence issued to the driver of the offending vehicle was valid upto 01.04.1995 and the said driving licence was got renewed by the driver on 31.10.1995, which was valid upto 10.10.1998, whereas the fact of the matter remains that it is an admitted position that the accident occurred on 11.08.1995. It is also submitted that if the benefit of grace period of one month as provided by the then first proviso to Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act” for short) is given in renewing the licence then also, the date on which the accident occurred, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving licence and therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. In supp