Back
2010 Supreme(All) 618
[2010(2) ADJ 735 (DB)(LB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : DEVI PRASAD SINGH AND DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ....Petitioner
Versus
MAHADEV RAWAT AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
(First Appeal From Order No. 44 of 2002, decided on 16th February, 2010)
Counsel :
Alka Verma for the Petitioner; Sanjai Srivastava for the Respondent.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 173, 15, 149(2) and 170—Appeal against award of compensation by Insurance Co.—Driving licence—Validity of—Contention of Insurance Co. that on date of accident, driver was not holding a valid driving licence—Originally, licence issued No. 7.8.1979—Renewed before accident—It was renewed w.e.f. 18.11.1989 to 17.11.1992—Then application for renewal was pending before concerned authority—And, same was renewed for period 27.5.1995 to 17.11.1998—Thus, licence was effective upto 17.11.1992, and same was renewed, w.e.f. 27.5.1995 to 17.11.1998—Hence, same was within period of five years, and is permissible as per Section 15(4), Proviso of Act—Once a licence is renewed, it shall be deemed to be operative from original date—Held, at the time of accident, licence of driver was pending for renewal in accordance to Proviso to Section 15(4) of Act—Moreover, appellant-Insurance Co. has not obtained permission under Section 170 of Act—Insurance Co. cannot escape its liability to pay compensation to Claimants—And, impugned order passed by Tribunal upheld. [Paras 9, 20, 22 to 25]
Result; Appeal Dismissed.
Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J.—This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award dated 19.10.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 52 of 1995.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.9.1994 at about 8.35 a.m., a driver of the Truck No. UP 41-4886 was driving it recklessly and negligently and at Pahadpur Chauraha P.S. Gudmba District Lucknow collided with a cyclist namely Suresh Rawat who died on the spot. The deceased was working on a contract basis in Space Center, Lucknow at Rs. 1,000/- per month. The Truck in question was insured with the appellant company against the cover note No. 834955 which was valid up to 30.9.1994.
3. For the purpose of computation, the Tribunal took the salary of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month and deducted one third for self expenditure. Thus, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per annum and by looking the age of claimant-respondent, applied the multiplier of 13 and awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,04,000/-. In addition, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded for funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation was awarded Rs. 1,06,000/-. Being aggrieved, the insurance company has filed the present appeal.
4. During the course of arguments, Ms. Alka Verma, counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant insurance company has not disputed the said facts and quantum of compensation. She confined her arguments only to the plea that the driver of the truck, Mohd. Parvez was not holding a valid driving license on the date of accident. She submits that the driving license was originally issued by the competent authority on 7.8.1979 which was renewed for the period of 18.11.1989 to 17.11.1992. It was again renewed on 27.7.1995 to 17.11.1998. Thus, on the date of accident i.e. 30.9.1994, the driver was not holding a valid driving license. To support her argument, she relied on the ration laid down in the case of Ram Babu Tewari v. United India Insurance Company, (2008) 8 SCC 165, where it was observed that when the driver was not duly licensed on the date of accident then insurance liability was excluded. She also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Prithvi Raj, (2008) 2 SCC 338, where it was observed that when the licensing authority had not issued any license as was claimed by the driver then the appellant-insurance company had no liability. She also relied on the following cases where similar ratio was laid down :
1. National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297;
2. National Insurance Company Limited v. Kusum Rai and others, (2006) 4 SCC 250;
3. Ram Babu Tewari v. United India Insurance Company Limited and others, (2008) 8 SCC165;
4. Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Prithavi Raj, (2008) 2 SCC 338;
5. Prem Kumari and others v. Prahlad Dev and others, (2008) 3 SCC 193;
6. National Insurance Company Limited v. Vidhya Dhar Mahariwal and others, (2008) AIR SCW 7145.
5. Lastly, she made a request that the award may kindly be set aside and the insurance company should not be held liable to pay any compensation as the driver was not having any valid license on the date of accident.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent has justified the impugned order.
7. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record.
8. It may be mentioned that Section 15 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 deals with the renewal of the driving license. The said provision reads as under :
“Renewal of driving licences.—(1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry :
Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed wit
