Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Devi Prasad Singh, Vishnu Chandra Gupta, JJ.
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar and Another -Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 1389 of 2009
Decided On : 21-09-2012
In a motor accident claim petition filed by the brother of the deceased driver, the court held that the deceased was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle involved in the accident as he possessed a driving license only for light motor vehicles. The court also found that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased driver, as the owner of the vehicle had not established any negligence on the part of the deceased. The court further held that the provisions of Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provide for a structured formula for determining compensation in accident cases, were not deleted from the statute book and were still in force.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, who was the driver of a Vikram Tempo, died in a motor accident. The deceased's brother filed a motor accident claim petition seeking compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company contested the claim on the ground that the deceased was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle involved in the accident and that the petition was not maintainable under Section 163(A) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the deceased was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle involved in the accident as he possessed a driving license only for light motor vehicles. The court also found that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased driver, as the owner of the vehicle had not established any negligence on the part of the deceased. The court further held that the provisions of Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provide for a structured formula for determining compensation in accident cases, were not deleted from the statute book and were still in force.
Issues: 1. Whether the deceased was authorized to drive the transport vehicle involved in the accident. 2. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased driver. 3. Whether the provisions of Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were deleted from the statute book.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the deceased was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle involved in the accident as he possessed a driving license only for light motor vehicles. The court relied on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which define the different categories of motor vehicles and the types of driving licenses required to drive them. 2. The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased driver, as the owner of the vehicle had not established any negligence on the part of the deceased. The court relied on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which impose a liability on the owner of a motor vehicle to pay compensation in case of an accident, irrespective of the negligence of the driver. 3. The court held that the provisions of Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provide for a structured formula for determining compensation in accident cases, were not deleted from the statute book and were still in force. The court relied on the provisions of the Repealing and Amending Act, 2001, which repealed certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but specifically excluded Section 163(A) from the repeal.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants in terms of the award passed by the tribunal. The court also directed the insurance company to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle through execution of the order before the tribunal.
This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act') has been preferred by New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the award dated 07.10.2009 passed in Motor Accident Claims No. 22 of 2009 filed under Section 163 (A) of M. V. Act delivered by Sri Nisar Ahmad, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Faizabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') wherein a sum of Rs. 4,12,500/- has been awarded as compensation with pendente lite and future simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the claimant-respondent Sri Sanjeev Kumar, who is the brother of deceased of this case namely Ajay Kumar @ Sintu.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.01.2009 at 2.30 p.m., the deceased Ajay Kumar @ Sintu, who was the driver of Vikram Tempo having registration No. U.P. 42-T/5674, was going on the road of Rekabganj on Vikram Tempo. When he was proceeding from Ayodhya to Faizabad his Vikram Tempo has turned turtle, Ajay Kumar received injuries. When he was en-route to hospital succumbed to the injuries. The deceased Ajay Kumar @ Sintu was an unmarried young boy aged about 21 years. He was a driver and was getting Rs.3,000/- per month as salary.
3. Sudhir Kumar Malhotra respondent No.2 was the owner of Vikram Tempo bearing registration No. U.P. 42-T/5674 which was insured with appellant/Insurance company on the date of accident.
4. The claimant respondent Sanjeev Kumar aged about 25 years, the elder brother of the deceased filed motor Accident Claim Petition on 29.01.2009 claiming therein a compensation of Rs. 4,13,000/-. He pleaded in the claim petition that the parents of the deceased had already expired and the claimant-respondent is the sole legal representative/heir of the deceased. Initially the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act but later on by moving an application for amendment got the petition amended and claim was converted under Section 163(A) instead of Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
5. The petition was contested by filing written statement by the owner of the vehicle in question as well as the Insurance Company. In written statement the owner respondent admitted that the deceased Ajay Kumar @ Sintu was the driver of tempo involved in accident and died in the said accident.
6. The Insurance Company pleaded that driver was not having any valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and pleaded breach of terms of policy, as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. It was also alleged that petition under the provision of M.V. Act is not maintainable. The claimant could get the compensation under the provision of Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as W.C. Act). It was further pleaded that the claimant is not dependent upon the deceased and as such, he cannot present the claim petition for compensation.
7. The Tribunal framed as many as five issues.
@ Hindi @
8. The Tribunal while deciding issue No.1 held that deceased Ajay Kumar @ Sintu was scummed to injuries in the motor accident as alleged by the claimant?
9 While deciding issue No.2, the tribunal held that the aforesaid vehicle was duly insured with the appellant company from 14.12.2008 to 13.12.2009 and decided the same in favour of the owner of the Vikram Tempo.
10. While determining the issue No.3, the tribunal observed that deceased was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. It was further observed that in view of the decision reported in 2008 (1) TAC page 812 = (2008) 3 SCC 464, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others driving licence to drive light motor vehicle would be valid because the vehicle in question having 1250 kg weight. The weight of the Vikram Tempo is not more than 7500 kg, therefore, the driver was having valid and effective driving licence and consequently held that the driver was effective valid driving licence to drive the Vikra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
