Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Deepak Gupta, J.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Vs.
VIDYA DEVI AND OTHERS - Respondent
F.A.O. No. 357 of 1996
Decided on : 11-04-2005
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 166 - The court discussed the issues of rash and negligent driving, compensation entitlement, unlicensed drivers, and the liability of insurance companies under the Motor Vehicles Act. Key legal provisions such as Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and relevant case laws were considered in determining the liability of the insurance company and the owners of the vehicles.
Fact of the Case:
Ved Prakash, a 19-year-old student, was fatally injured in a road accident involving a van and an oil tanker. His parents filed a claim petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company had discharged its initial burden of proving the breach of policy conditions, and the owners of the vehicles had failed to discharge their onus. As a result, the insurance company was not held liable to pay compensation.
Issues: The issues included determining the cause of the accident, entitlement to compensation, and the effect of unlicensed drivers on liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving the breach of the policy was on the insurance company, and the court considered the liability of the owners in light of relevant legal provisions and case laws.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the insurance company was directed to deposit the awarded amount, with the right to recover the entire amount from the owners of the vehicles.
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. Ved Prakash, a boy aged 19 years who was a student of class X was riding his bicycle on 29.4.1992. At about 8 a.m. he reached bus stand, Pandoh. A Maruti van No. HPY 1334 was parked on the left side of the road. While Ved Prakash was passing by the side of the van, the driver of this van, respondent No. 6, suddenly opened the door of the van and hit the deceased. Due to this impact the cyclist swerved towards right side and he was knocked down by the oil tanker No. HPA 6489 which was coming from the opposite side. Ved Prakash suffered serious injuries. He was firstly taken to the District Hospital, Mandi and then referred to the PGI, Chandigarh. He succumbed to his injuries on 30.4.1992.
2. The claimants, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, parents of Ved Prakash deceased filed a claim petition for grant of compensation u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Both the vehicles were insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The driver of the oil tanker, respondent No. 4, herein filed a reply to the petition denying the accident and took up the plea that his tanker was not involved in the accident and in fact he reached at the site much later. Driver of the van, respondent No. 6, tried to shift the blame to the deceased himself and it was averred that the deceased had hit the oil tanker while negligently riding his bicycle.
3. The appellant, insurance company, took up the plea that the vehicles in question were being driven by unlicensed and unauthorised persons the liability of which was not covered under the policy of insurance. Both the owners, i.e., respondent Nos. 3 and 5 did not care to file reply to the petition. The owner of the tanker, respondent No. 3, was served but proceeded ex parte by the Tribunal on 22.6.1993. The owner of the van, respondent No. 5 herein, stated that he did not want to file independent reply and adopt the reply filed by his driver, respondent No. 4.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal on 12.9.1994:
(1) Whether the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti van and oil tanker by their respective drivers and Ved Prakash died in the said accident as alleged? OPP
(2) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation for the death of Ved Prakash, if so, how much and from whom?
OPP
(3) Whether at the time of the accident the vehicle in question was being driven by unlicensed and unauthorised person as alleged in preliminary objection No. 1 of the reply, if so its effect? OPP
(4) Relief.
5. Thereafter, evidence was recorded. During the course of proceedings the insurance company filed two applications under Order 11, Rule 14 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. In the first application it was stated that the driver of the tanker had supplied certain particulars in respect of his driving licence and on investigation it was found that this licence was not issued by the D.T.O. Office, Kamrup, Ullubari, Guwahati (Assam). It was, therefore, prayed that owner, respondent No. 1 and driver, respondent No. 2, be directed to produce the original driving licence of Karnail Singh. It would be pertinent tc mention that so far as the owner and driver of the oil tanker are concerned they did not care to file the reply to this application. In the second application, the insurance company submitted that the driving licence of the van had been given to it by the driver. On verification, it was found that no such licence was issued by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Nahan, from where the said licence purported to have been issued. The driver of the van did not also file the reply to this application. Respondent No. 3 took up the plea that he had never supplied the particulars of his licence to the insurance company and that the respondent No. 4 has left his job and, therefore, he was not in a position to supply the driving licence of the driver of the van.
6. Claimants led evidence. The owners and the drivers of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
