SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL AND DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, JJ.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ALLAHABAD - Appellant
Versus
Smt. BABLI AND OTHERS - Respondents
(First Appeal From Order No. 20 of 2001, decided on 22nd February, 2017)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Anand Kumar Sinha for the Appellant; A.L. Jaiswal, S.S. Shukla and Sharve Singh for the Respondents.

Headnote:Motor accident—Compensation—Legality—Validity of licence of driver—An endorsement with regard to "goods and heavy transport vehicle" in driving licence—Nothing on record to show that said endorsement was not genuine—It could not be said that driving licence in question not valid or owner of vehicle intentionally breached any condition of insurance policy—Compensation should be computed by applying multiplier of 14 and not 15.

       Appeal Partly Allowed.

       

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the parties requested that preparation of paper book be dispensed with and appeal be heard and decided on the basis of perusal of lower court record and record made available with appeal. Since, only two short points are involved which are basically legal in nature, hence, we proceed accordingly.

3. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1988) has been filed by Insurance Company-respondent no. 4 against award dated 31st October, 2000 passed by District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 80 of 1989, awarding compensation of Rs 7,30,000/- to claimants-respondents.

4. Sri A.K. Sinha, learned counsel for appellant assails the aforesaid judgment on two grounds. Firstly, driver of Truck No. DEL 5288 did not possess a valid licence to drive heavy vehicle instead he had valid licence only for light vehicles. The learned counsel has relied on Sections 3 and 7 of Act 1988. Secondly, having regard to age of the deceased, being 41 years, in view of judgment in Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 15, awarded in the instant case is not correct.

5. Thus, there are only two points for determination for deciding this appeal:

(i) Whether driver of tortfeasor vehicle did not possess valid driving licence and on account thereof, there was breach of condition of insurance policy rendering appellant not liable to pay compensation.

(ii) Whether multiplier applied by Tribunal is correct or needs modification.

6. Photocopy of driving licence has been placed on record which shows that it was issued to one, Mohabbat Ali S/o Hakim Ali on 22.10.1992 and marked valid for following categories: (i) Motorcycle with gear (ii) Light motor vehicle.

7. The term 'licence' is defined under Section 2 (10) of Act 1988 and reads as under:

"driving licence means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description"

8. Chapter 2 contains Sections 3 to 28, dealing with the subject of licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. For our purposes we may refer hereat Sections 3, 9 and 10 of Act 1988 as under:-

Section 3-. Necessity for driving licence:-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab [or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence 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.

Section 9. Grant of driving licence. (1) Any person who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area--

(i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or

(ii) in which the school or establishment referred to in section 12 from where he is receiving or has received instruction in driving a motor vehicle is situated, for the issue to him of a driving licence.

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such fee and such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(3) If the applicant passes such test as may be prescribed by the Central Government, he shall be issued the driving licence:

Provided that no such test shall be necessary where the applicant produces proof to show that--

(a) (i) the applicant has previously held a driving licence






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top