SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(J&K) 31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Nek Mohd., S/o. Abdul Mazid & Ors. - Respondents
Mac App No. 06 of 2020
Decided On : 29-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Suneel Malhotra.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jagpal Singh.

The burden of proving the validity of the driving license lies with the owner and driver, and the liability of the insurance company depends on the status of the passenger.

Headnote:

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - 3, 10(2), 14(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the requirement of a valid driving license, the definition of a transport vehicle, and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The court also highlighted the burden of proof regarding the validity of the driving license and the liability of the insurance company in case of a gratuitous passenger.

Fact of the Case:

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation due to injuries sustained in a vehicular accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant, holding the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the claimant proved the accident and the injuries sustained, while the Insurance Company's evidence regarding the driver's valid driving license and the violation of insurance policy terms was not sufficient. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal.

Issues: The issues included the occurrence of the accident, entitlement to compensation, validity of the driving license, violation of insurance policy terms, and the claimant's status as a gratuitous passenger.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proving the validity of the driving license lies with the owner and driver, and the liability of the insurance company depends on the status of the passenger. The court also emphasized the definition of a transport vehicle and the terms of the insurance policy.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's award of compensation to the claimant and the liability of the Insurance Company.

ORDER :

1. In the instant appeal, award dated 23.11.2019 (for short “the impugned award”) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kathua (for short “the Tribunal”) in the claim petition titled as “Nek Mohd Vs. Gulam Abas alias Mohd Abas & Ors.” has been thrown challenge to by the Insurance Company – appellant herein.

2. Facts emanating from the record would reveal that the respondent 1 herein filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident having taken place on 02.09.2011 at Ganeer Bouli near Mahanpur at Dhar Road due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. JK02H/5789.

In the claim said petition, the claimant/respondent 1 herein besides impleading the driver of the offending vehicle as respondent, also impleaded the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the Insurance Company – appellant herein with whom the offending vehicle was insured on the date of accident.

3. Upon entertaining the claim petition, the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents in response to which the respondents 1 and 2 i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did neither appear not contest the claim petition, however, the respondent 3 – Insurance Company appeared and filed its objections to the claim petition whereafter, on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

    (i) Whether an accident occurred on 02.09.2011 at about 745 PM, at Ganeer Bouli, near Mahanpur, at Dhar Road, due to rash, negligent and careless driving of Gulam Abas alias Mohd Abas thereby causing injuries to the petitioner.? (OPP)

(ii) If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation and to what extent? (OPP)

(iii) Whether the offending vehicle was being used in contravention of registration certificate and in violation of terms and conditions of the policy of Insurance? (OPR-3)

(iv) Whether the driver of the alleged vehicle did not possess valid/effective driving license to drive the particular class of vehicle? (OPR-3)

(v) Relief. (OP Parties)

4. The claimant/respondent 1 herein in order to prove the issues (i) & (ii), onus whereof to prove the same was put upon him by the Tribunal besides appearing himself as a witness also examined witnesses, namely, Gulam Haider, Qamar Din and Dr. Vikas Padha whereas the Insurance Company – appellant herein examined two witnesses in support of the issue, onus whereof was laid upon it, namely, Sanjay Kumar – Junior Assistant in the Office of ARTO, Udhampur and Surinder Kumar Bhat being Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company.

5. The Tribunal upon adjudication of the claim petition passed the impugned award holding the claimant/respondent 1 herein entitled to the compensation amounting to Rs.3,73,000/- along with interest @ 6.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of its payment by the respondent 3/appellant herein while holding the Insurance Company – appellant herein liable to indemnify the insured owner of the offending vehicle.

6. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award on the following grounds urged in the instant appeal:-

    "a. That the section 3 of the Motor Vehicle act of 1988 provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds the effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a Transport vehicle other than the Motor Cab or Motor Cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under [2) section 75 unless his driving licence entitled him to do so. The section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1988 provides form and contents of the driving licence to drive section 10 provides the classes of licence as:-

a. Motor cycle without gear,

b. Motor cycle with gear,

c. Invalid carriage,

d. Light Motor Vehicle

e. Transport vehicle

f. Road R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top