Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1885
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
Tajeev Yadav @ Rajeev Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others - Respondent
FAO-7279-2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 17-01-2019
Mr. Satnam Singh Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.l
The breach of the insurance policy condition must be the immediate cause of the accident, and the insurer must establish the owner's wilful breach of insurance policy conditions.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 149(2), Section 173 - The court discussed the validity of the driver's license, the insurance company's liability, and the conditions for avoiding liability under the insurance policy. The court held that the breach of the policy condition must be the immediate cause of the accident and the insurer must establish the owner's wilful breach of insurance policy conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the victim for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The owner of the offending vehicle appealed against the recovery rights granted to the Insurance Company, arguing that the driver had a valid license at the time of engagement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the owner had engaged the driver after verifying his valid driving license and that the non-renewal of the license did not contribute to the accident. The recovery rights granted to the Insurance Company were denied.
Issues: Validity of driver's license, Insurance company's recovery rights, Owner's liability under the insurance policy
Ratio Decidendi: The breach of the policy condition must be the immediate cause of the accident, and the insurer must establish the owner's wilful breach of insurance policy conditions.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the recovery rights of the Insurance Company were denied.
JUDGMENT
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa. J. - The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon vide award dated 09.01.2015 awarded a compensation amount of Rs.4,51,467/- in favour of Hardutt for the injuries that he suffered in a motor vehicle accident dated 05.06.2013 involving the offending/insured Tata Canter vehicle bearing registration No.HR-47-B-2571. Insofar as the liability to pay the compensation amount was concerned, the Tribunal took a view that the amount of compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company in the first instance and thereafter shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.
2. Instant appeal has been filed at the hands of the owner of the offending vehicle assailing the recovery rights that had been granted by the Tribunal in favour of respondent No.1/Insurance Company.
3. Counsel representing the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in holding the owner to be also liable for the compensation and has not appreciated the fact that the appellant had appointed respondent No.2 driver after seeing his driving license as also testing his driving ability. Counsel further urges that the driving license Ex.P16 was valid upto 15.01.2035 for Non-Transport Vehicle and was valid till 10.05.2013 for Transport Vehicle and the accident had taken place on 05.06.2013 i.e. within a period of 25 days of the expiry of the license for Transport Vehicle and as per provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a grace period of 30 days for renewal of the license and in the present case, the grace period was upto 10.06.2013. Since the accident took place on 05.06.2013, the Tribunal could not have taken a view that the driver was without license. Further argued that no evidence had been produced by the Insurance Company to substantiate that expiry of the license in any case was in the knowledge of the appellant/owner of the vehicle.
4. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.1/ Insurance Company has argued that as on the date of the accident, the authorization in favour of the driver to drive a Transport Vehicle had already expired and as such, the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. Counsel submits that the recovery rights as such have rightfully been granted by the Tribunal in favour of the Insurance Company.
5. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and even the records of the case that were requisitioned have been perused minutely.
6. The Tribunal in the award dated 09.01.2015 has noticed the driving license of the driver Ex.P16 and has taken note that the same was valid for a Transport Vehicle upto 10.05.2013 and for a Non-Transport Vehicle, valid upto 15.01.2035. Date of the accident is 05.06.2013. Tribunal has further noticed that as per registration certificate of the offending vehicle, Ex.P17, the class of vehicle mentioned therein was Medium Goods Vehicle (MGV). Accordingly, the offending vehicle has been taken as a Transport Vehicle and it has been opined that since on the date of the accident, the driver did not have authorization to drive a Transport Vehicle, the same was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and as such recovery rights were granted to the Insurance company to recover the compensation amount from the driver/owner jointly and severally.
7. In the considered view of this Court, the grant of recovery rights by the Tribunal in the award dated 09.01.2015 in favour of the Insurance Company cannot sustain.
8. It is a case where the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle had taken a categoric plea that he had engaged/employed the driver after having seen his driving license and also having seen him driving the vehicle. Law does not require the owner to verify the genuineness of the driving license. Owner was only to be satisfied that the driver had a valid driving license and for the In
