Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 2222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J.
Jagtar Singh and Another – Appellants
Versus
Sneh Lata and Others – Respondents
FAO No. 319 of 2009
Decided On : 01-01-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Subhash Sharma.
For the Respondents: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Mr. Rahul Verma, Mr. J.S. Bagga.
The main legal point established is that the driver's lack of a valid driving license at the time of the accident can lead to liability for the driver and owner in a motor accident claim.
Headnote:
Driving Licence - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - The court upheld the award of compensation in favor of the claimants and held the driver and owner liable as the driver did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby compensation was awarded in favor of the claimants and the insurer was held liable. The driver and owner challenged the award on the ground that the Tribunal erred in saddling them with the liability.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the impugned award as the insurer failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the driver, owner, and insurer in a motor accident claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident, based on the evidence presented, and therefore upheld the award of compensation in favor of the claimants.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned award, directing the release of the compensation amount in favor of the claimants.
JUDGMENT :
MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 30th March, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, (for short, the Tribunal), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.7,70,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, with right of recovery, (for short, the impugned award).
2. The claimants and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the driver and the owner have questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling them with the liability and that the insurer has wrongly been exonerated.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award as well as the pleadings of the parties.
5. It was for the insurer to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence, has examined RW-3 Shri Umesh Tripathi, employee of Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur in Chhattisgarh, who has clearly stated that the driving licence, in question, was never issued from their office. Certificate Ext.RW- 3/A and copy of the driving licence Ext.RW-2/C clearly establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence on the date of accident. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion on the said issue in paragraph 16 of the impugned award.
6. Having said so, no interference is required in the impugned award. Accordingly, it is held that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned award is upheld.
7. The Registry is directed to release the amount of compensation in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the impugned award.
