Back
2013 Supreme(HP) 869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice MansoorAhmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice.
FAO No.27 of 2006 a/wCONo. 197of2006 Decided on: 13.12.2013
Seva Singh Versus Amar Nath & others
For the appellant:Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Nemo for respondent No.2. Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 6. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. C.S. Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 and 5.
The judgment established that under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer must prove both available defenses and a breach on the part of the owner to avoid liability.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Liability of Insurer - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 149
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained injuries in a traffic accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a truck. The Tribunal awarded compensation against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The owner appealed, contesting the exoneration of the insurer from liability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurer failed to prove any willful breach on the part of the owner, and thus, the insurer was held liable and required to satisfy the award.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal rightly exonerated the insurer from liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which stipulates that the insurer must establish both the available defenses and a breach on the part of the owner to avoid liability. The court emphasized that the mere absence, fake, or invalid driving license of the driver is not a defense available to the insurer.
Final Decision: The impugned award was modified, holding the insurer liable and requiring it to satisfy the award. The appeal was disposed of, and the cross-objections were dismissed.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) This appeal is directed against the award, dated 15th December, 2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No. 29 of 2002, titled as Amar Nath versus Seva Singh & others, whereby an award of ` 79,252/ alongwith interest @ 7.5% and costs including lawyer’s fees assessed at ` 3,000/ came to be granted in favour of the claimant, namely Shri Amar Nath, and against the ownerappellant, Shri Seva Singh, and driver of the offending vehicle from the date of filing of the petition till its finalization (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
Brief facts:
2.It is averred that on 9th November, 2001, at about 5.45 a.m., near College Chowk Bilaspur, the claimantrespondent No. 1, during his morning walk, became victim of traffic accident, which was caused by driver, namely Harnam Singh, while driving the truck bearing registration No. HP244337 rashly and negligently, in which claimantrespondent No. 1 sustained multiple grievous injuries including pelvis fracture. He was taken to Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur, from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla, where he remained admitted for four days. Thereafter, he also remained admitted at Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur, for about 14 days.
3. The respondents therein contested the claim petition. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:
“1. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5 of vehicle No. HP 3 74357/respondent No. 2 of vehicle No. HP 24433 7? ...OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom is the petitioner entitled to? ...OPP 3. Whether the respondents No. 2 and 5 had not been in possession of valid and effective licence at the time of the accident, if so, with what effect? ...OPR3&64.Relief.”
4. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence held that the claimantrespondent No. 1 sustained injuries as a result of the accident caused by truck No. HP244337, which was result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. Thus, the Tribunal, while allowing the petition, awarded a sum of ‘ 79,252/alongwith interest @ 7.5% and costs including lawyer’s fees assessed at ‘ 3,000/.
5. The insured/owner of the offending vehicle has questioned the impugned award. Thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to other respondents.
6.Thus, the only question arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has rightly exonerated respondent No. 6, i.e. insurerThe New India Assurance Company Limited. The answer is in negative.
7. The undisputed facts of the case are that Harnam Singh, driver of the truck bearing registration No. HP244337, had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 9th November, 2001, at about 5.45 a.m., near College Chowk Bilaspur. The claimant, Amar Nath, being the victim of the vehicular accident, filed a claim petition and sought compensation as per breakups in the claim petition. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that Harnam Singh had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and had caused accident and also awarded a sum of ‘ 79,252/ alongwith interest @ 7.5% and costs including lawyer’s fees assessed at ‘ 3,000/, in favour of the claimant and saddled the owner with the liability.
8. The driver and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Seva Singhowner/insured has questioned the same on the ground that he has complied with the mandate of law and the driver was having a valid driving licence. The Tribunal has fallen in error in exonerating the Insurance Company.
9. I have gone through the file as well as the award passed by the Tribunal. It is admitted that Harnam Singh had produced the licence and which stands proved before the Tribunal. No doubt, the insurer has examined Manga Ram, RW3, who has
