High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Versus
S. Saravanan (Infirmity) & Others
C.M.A. No.3363 of 2008 and Cross Appeal No.2 of 2009
Decided on: 12-06-2009
Driving License - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 3, 4, 5 - The judgment discusses the liability of the insurance company in a motor vehicle accident where the driver did not possess a valid driving license. It highlights the legal provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and their interpretations, emphasizing that the insurance company must pay the compensation to the third party and may recover it from the owner for the breach of policy conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, a Lecturer, was in a vegetative state due to a motor vehicle accident caused by a driver without a valid license. The insurance company disputed liability based on the driver's lack of a valid license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimant and may recover it from the owner for the breach of policy conditions.
Issues: Liability of insurance company, compensation amount, breach of policy conditions
Ratio Decidendi: The insurance company must pay the compensation to the third party and may recover it from the owner for the breach of policy conditions.
Final Decision: The insurance company was directed to pay the compensation to the claimant and recover it from the owner for the breach of policy conditions.
Prabha Sridevan, J.
1. The irresponsibility on the part of owners who allow their vehicles to be driven by persons who do not possess a valid driving license and the tragic consequences that visit an innocent third party on account of this irresponsibility is the subject of this appeal.
2. The claimant, who is indisputably in a vegetative condition because of the accident, is represented by his next friend, his wife. He was 33 years at the time of the accident, which occurred on 210. 2002. He was a Lecturer in the Physics Department in Kaveri Polytechnic. His injuries are of such nature that he has to take continuous medical treatment. This misfortune fell on him because the second respondent allowed one of his relatives, who did not have a license, to drive his motorcycle. Because of his lack of expertise, the driver of the insured vehicle drove the motorcycle at an uncontrollable speed and hit the claimant, who was going to his house. After the accident, the claimant was admitted in Sri Gokulam Hospital, Salem; then to NIMHANS, Bangalore; Manipal Institute for Neurological Disorders, Bangalore; Kamala Hospital, Salem and A.G. Neurological Hospital, Salem. A compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.17,24,953/-. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal saw for himself the claimants condition when he was brought to the Court and he has recorded that the claimant, Saravanan had his eyes open and he was breathing, but he was otherwise not conscious of anything that was happening around him. He has also recorded that the claimant was in a vegetative state.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company mainly disputed the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation since the insured had breached the specific condition of the insurance policy, which excludes the driving of the vehicle by a person who is not duly licensed. On a perusal of the records, it is seen from Ex.B.2 that Murugesan, who was driving the vehicle, had applied for a license only on 21. 2003. His learners license is dated 112. 2002 and was valid from 112. 2002 to 6. 2003. Ex.B.2 also shows that the second respondent has addressed a letter to the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Mettur stating that he has no objection to his relatives son Thiru. Murugesan to obtain a drivers license. This letter is dated 21. 2003. The accident, we repeat, occurred on 210. 2002.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant, on the other hand, submitted that considering the pathetic case of the claimant, a third party, and the trauma his family members have been going through, this Court must enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Sections 3, 4 , and 5, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are extracted hereunder:-
"3. Necessity for driving license.-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than1[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under subsection (2) of section 75] unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do.
(2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
4. Age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles.-(1) No person under the age of eighteen years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place:
Provided that1 [a motor cycle with engine capacity not exceeding 50cc] may be driven in a public place by a person after attaining the age of sixteen years.
.(2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place.
.(3) No learners license or driving license shall be issued to any person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he has made an ap
5. Sohan Lal Passi vs. P. Sesh Reddy
7. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors.
8. ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Punjab Communications Network Ltd.
10. Kunal Singh v. Union of India and Anr.
116. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh
117. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai
118. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited
20. Sardari vs. Sushil Kumar 2008 (2) Supreme 451
3. New India Assurance Co. vs. Kamla
4. Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan
6. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. v. A. Rajappa and Ors. Etc.
9. Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Ors. v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Anr.
AI
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.