Back
2005 Supreme(J&K) 331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT Jammu
B.A. Khan,J.P. Singh, JJ.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sughra Bibi & Ors. - Respondent
LPA (C) No. 35/2001
Decided On : 30 November, 2005
Advocate For Appellant: R.K. Gupta
Advocate For Respondent: G.R. Asghar
Non-renewal of a driver's license does not absolve the insurance company of its liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Rash and Negligent Driving - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 2(10), Section 3, Section 14, Section 15 - The court upheld the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ruling that non-renewal of a driver's license does not absolve the insurance company of its liability under Section 149(2)(a)(iii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court emphasized that a driver, once licensed, continues to possess the ability to drive the vehicle unless proven otherwise, and non-renewal of the license does not render the driver 'not duly licensed' under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The driver of a bus drove rashly and negligently, resulting in the death of a person due to electrocution. The widow and minor children of the deceased filed a claim petition, which was decided in their favor by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company, upholding the Tribunal's decision and ruling that non-renewal of a driver's license does not absolve the insurance company of its liability.
Issues: The issues included determining the cause of the accident, the amount of compensation, and the validity of the driver's license and insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that non-renewal of a driver's license does not render the driver 'not duly licensed' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and does not absolve the insurance company of its liability.
Final Decision: The appeal was found to be without merit and dismissed, and the Insurance Company was burdened to pay litigation expenses to the claimants.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment dated 29.12.2000 in CIMA No.117/96, whereby while dismissing the appeal of the appellant, learned Single Judge has upheld the award dated 09.03.1996 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu.
2. Facts leading to the filing of this Letters Patent Appeal may be summarized, thus:
One Noor Hussain was loading milk in cans on to the roof top of a bus bearing registration No.JK02A 4817, when the driver of the bus, without taking requisite care and caution, drove it rashly and negligently, which resulted in the instantaneous death of said Noor Hussain because of electrocution with over head electric wires.
3. Sughra Bibi- widow of the deceased, Rubia aged 4 years, Tariq Hussain aged 2 1/2 years and Sadiq Hussain aged 1 year, filed a claim petition, which came to be registered as file No.125/Claims.
The Claims Tribunal raised following issues for deciding the claim petition. These issues read, thus:-
"1. Whether accident involving death of the deceased has occurred by the use of the offending bus driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No.3 ? OPP
2. What is amount of compensation payable to the petitioners and by whom in the event of proof of issue No.1 in the affirmative ? OPP
3. Whether the offending bus was driven without a valid driving licence and in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy ? OPR-1.
4. Relief."
4. The claimants led their evidence on the basis whereof Issues Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were decided in favour of the claimants in holding that the driver of the vehicle was negligent in driving the vehicle, which resulted in instantaneous death of Noor Hussain, deceased. The claimants were held entitled to an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12 %.
5. After discussing Issue No.3, in detail, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company can not escape its liability on the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence in his favour. The plea raised by the Insurance Company that the Licence though issued in the name of the driver had not been renewed on the date of accident and as such the Insurance Company was absolved of its liability, was found to be without merit.
6. The New India Assurance Company was, thus, directed to satisfy the award.
The appellant-Company, filed a Civil Ist Miscellaneous Appeal in this Court putting up the same plea, which it had raised before the Tribunal.
7. Relying on a Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Indirani and others reported as 1995 ACJ 703, the learned Single Judge rejected the plea and dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company with costs quantified at Rs.1,000/-.
8. Undaunted by the repeated failure of its plea, which appears to have been projected only with a view to protract the litigation and facilitate the filing of appeals one after another, one of the premiere Insurance Company of the Country, ventured again to protract the litigation and aggravated the misery and sufferings of those who had been left without a bread winner.
9. Sh. R. K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the New India Assurance Company, canvassed the same old story which the Company had been projecting since 1994, when the claim petition was filed. Sh. Gupta referred to Section 2(10), Section 3 and Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to canvass that expression "Duly Licensed" appearing in Section 149 (2)(a)(iii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would mean `effective driving licence. According to Sh. Gupta, non renewal of a licence of a driver would mean that he is not duly licensed to drive the vehicle, which in turn would be sufficient for an Insurance Company to avoid its liability with the aid of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
10. Sh. R. K. Gupta refers to `Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Felix Correa and others, (2003) 10 SCC 289 and `National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and
