Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 2133
2012 (1) RCR(Civ) 875
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Monika and others - Respondents
F.A.O. No. 6405 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided on: December 12, 2011
For the Appellant :Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate.
For the Respondents No. 1 to 3:Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that the insurance company must prove the absence of a valid driving license and the relationship between the driver and the owner to disown liability.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 163-A - 1, 2, 3, 4
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, awarding compensation to the claimants on the death of Jai Bhagwan in a road side accident. The insurance company challenged its liability based on the deceased not possessing a valid driving license and driving the vehicle after borrowing it from the owner.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, holding that the deceased had a valid driving license and the insurance company failed to prove otherwise. The Tribunal also found the insurance company liable based on the package policy covering the driver.
Issues: The issues included the death in a motor vehicular accident, amount of compensation, validity of the driving license, and relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents to establish that the insurance company failed to discharge the onus of proving the deceased did not possess a valid driving license. It also emphasized the lack of evidence to establish the relationship between the deceased and the owner, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the award of compensation to the claimants.
Vijender Singh Malik, J
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is in appeal before this court against the award dated 23.5.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal"), vide which the claim petition brought by Monika and others under the provisions of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) has been allowed, awarding a sum of Rs.4,84,700/-as compensation to them on the death of Jai Bhagwan, in a road side accident that took place on 6.4.2007. The insurance company has challenged its liability to satisfy the award or rather indemnify the owner of the vehicle on two grounds. The first submission advanced on its behalf is that Jai Bhagwan (deceased) had been driving the motor vehicle involved in the accident after borrowing the same from the owner and secondly, Jai Bhagwan was not possessing any licence to drive the vehicle and, consequently, the insurer claims that it could not be held liable to satisfy the award. The claim of the petitioners can be briefly put as under :-
2. On 6.4.2007, at about 1.15 p.m., Jai Bhagwan was driving scooter No. PB-65-2946 on the road leading to ISBT, Sector 43, Chandigarh. When he was near the wine shop of village Kajheri, an unknown Skoda car came from his back side and struck against the scooter as a result of which Jai Bhagwan suffered multiple injuries. He was immediately taken to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to those injuries on 7.4.2007. Jai Bhagwan is claimed to be 22 years old at the time of accident. He is said to have been working as labourer with Indian Hobby House, Mohali and was earning ` 3,300/-per month. A sum of ` 50,000/-is claimed to have been spent on the treatment of the deceased as also his funeral and last rites. Claiming that scooter No. PB-65-2946 was owned at the time of accident by respondent No.1, Mohinder Pal Kohli and was insured with. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, respondent No.2 and that the death of Jai Bhagwan had occurred due to an accident arising out of the use of said scooter, a sum of 20,00,000/- is claimed as compensation.
3. Respondent No.1, the owner of the scooter has challenged the maintainability of the petition against him. He has, however, claimed that Jai Bhagwan was duly licensed to drive the vehicle. The other averments of the claimants have been denied and the claim petition is prayed to be dismissed.
4. The insurer has also questioned the maintainability of the petition and has alleged violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the scooter was being driven by a person not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident. It has also been averred that the petition is not maintainable under the provisions of section 163A of the Act. Therefore, the claim petition is prayed to be dismissed.
5. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal.
1. Whether Jai Bhagwan died in a motor vehicular accident, which took place near Wine shop, village Kajheri, UT, Chandigarh at about 1.15 p.m. on 6.4.2007 on account of use of scooter bearing registration No. PB-65-2946? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP
3. Whether Jai Bhagwan, since deceased was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR
4. Relief.
6. Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of 4,84,700/- to the claimants.
7. Learned Tribunal has dealt with the question of driving licence in para No. 15 of the award and noticing that Monika, petitioner appearing as PW-2 has categorically stated that her husband Jai Bhagwan was having a valid and effective driving licence and that Mohinder Pal Kohli (RW-1) has categorically stated that Jai Bhagwan (deceased) was holding a valid driving licence, learned Tribunal has held the insurance comp
