Madras High Court
MAHARAJAN
Madras Motor and General Insurance - Appellant
Versus
Madathi Ammal - Respondent
Decided On : 03/01/1974
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - DRIVER WITHOUT VALID LICENCE - PROVISO TO SECTION 96(2)(B)(II) - CONSTRUCTION - INSURANCE COMPANY LIABLE TO INDEMNIFY OWNER.
Fact of the Case:
A lorry insured with the appellant Insurance Company and driven by one Ramachandran dashed against a bullock cart, resulting in the death of the bullock cart driver. The driver had a valid license till 27-11-1968, but renewed it only on 10-1-1969, after the accident on 8-1-1969. The Insurance Company denied liability on the ground that the driver had no valid license on the date of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owner of the lorry. The court interpreted the proviso to Section 96(2)(B)(II) of the Motor Vehicles Act as covering a driver who had held a license prior to the date of the accident, but not disqualified for holding it at the time of the accident, though they hold no valid license at the time of the accident.
Issues: Whether the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owner of the lorry despite the driver not having a valid license on the date of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owner of the lorry because: * The proviso to Section 96(2)(B)(II) of the Motor Vehicles Act covers a driver who had held a license prior to the date of the accident, but not disqualified for holding it at the time of the accident, though they hold no valid license at the time of the accident. * The Insurance Company had opted to exclude driving only by a person who had prior to the accident, held the license and was not disqualified at the time of the accident from holding or obtaining such a license.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company and directed it to pay the compensation amount with interest.
2. After the accident, the driver himself lodged Ex. A-3, the first information report, in which he stated that while driving, he had a nap for a second, with the result his lorry dashed against the bullock cart, and the driver of the cart and the bullock died on the spot. On foot of this first information report, the driver was prosecuted under Sections 304-A and 279, I. P. C. before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli, and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and three months respectively. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant is fair enough to concede that the plea of rashness and negligence on the part of the lorry driver has been established and he is not prepared to challenge the finding in this behalf.
The next question that arises for consideration is, what is the quantum of compensation payable to the widow of the deceased? The evidence of P. W. 1, the widow is that her husband used to earn about Rs. 5 every day and that at the time of the accident he was aged 40. But for the accident, it is not unlikely that he would have, lived for another 20 years. If he had been paying even Rs. 75 Per mensem, to his dependent wife, he would have paid Rs. 900 per year to her for a period of 20 years. Even making allowance for the lump sum payment, I would have fixed the amount of compensation at a much higher figure than the amount of Rs. 5,000 fixed by the tribunal. However, as the claimant has not preferred any appeal, I confirm the quantum fixed by the tribunal.
3. The third and most important question raised by the Insurance Company may next be considered. Ex. B-1 is the history sheet of Ramachandran, who drove the lorry and caused the accident. This hitory sheet has been maintained in the office of the Regional Transport Authority, Tirunelveli. It is found therefrom that the driving licence originally issued to Ramachandran expired on 27-11-1968. Under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act-
"A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall, subject to the provisions contained in this Act as to the cancellation of driving licences and the disqualification of holders of driving licences for holding or obtaining driving licences, be effective without renewal for a period of three years only, from the date of the issue of the driving licence, or, as the case may be, from the date with effect from which the driving licence is renewed under Section 11. and the driving licence shall be deemed to continue to be effective for a period of 30 days after the date of its expiry."
By force of Section 10, therefore, the licence of Ramachandran shall be deemed to continue to be effective for a period of 30 days from 27-11-1968. In other words, it must be deemed to have been in force till 27-12-1968. Actually, Ramachandran appears to have renewed his licence, not within the period of the grace allowed bv Section 10 of the Act, but with effect from 10-1-1969. Under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act,
"Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a driving licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effec
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.