Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Ram Shabad Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Harilal - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 217 of 2018
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Satyendra Pandey.
For the Respondent: Prem Chand Srivastava, Rahul Sahai.

Point of Law : Burden lies on the owner of proving foundational facts including satisfaction of authenticity of driver's licence prior to latter's appointment - This burden can be discharged in light of standards and criteria provided by authorities in point discussed earlier.

Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims - Accident - Death - Claim compensation - Case of claimants before learned tribunal was that deceased died of injuries sustained in an accident which occurred and was caused by rash and negligent driving of driver of truck bearing Registration No. - Offending vehicle was insured by respondent Insurance Company - Claimants were dependant on deceased - Deceased was 44 years of age at time of accident - Impugned award found for claimants by holding that the driver of the offending truck drove negligently and was solely responsible for the accident which resulted in death of deceased - Learned tribunal found that the insurance policy terms were breached - Insurance company was absolved of its liability on this footing, and owner was made liable to pay the awarded compensation - Whether, in the facts of this case, the learned tribunal erred in law by fixing the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of offending vehicle? - These facts found by the learned tribunal are undisputed. The accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of offending truck - Offending truck was insured by the respondent-Insurance company. [Para 8]
Finding of Court : Court are in general agreement with the approach of Bench but court intend to point out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been made in the light of the requirements of law in terms whereof insurer is to establish wilful breach on the part of the insured and not for the purpose of its disentitlement from raising any defence or the owners be absolved from any liability whatsoever – Court would be dealing in some details with this aspect of the matter a little later - Burden lies on the owner of proving foundational facts including satisfaction of authenticity of driver's licence prior to latter's appointment - Burden can be discharged in light of the standards and criteria provided by authorities in point discussed earlier –In wake of preceding discussion, Court finds that owner had failed to establish aforesaid foundational facts - Owner did not appear in witness box to prove that driving licence of driver was produced before him and that he was satisfied with its genuineness at the time of driver's appointment - Further, pleadings entered by owner-appellant before learned tribunal too are deficient in this regard.
Result : Appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. This first appeal from order arises out of the judgment and award dated 13.10.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/learned Additional District Judge, Maharajganj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.114 of 2014 (Harilal and others Vs. Ram Shabad Yadav and others).

2. The owner-appellant contesting the liability to pay the compensation.

3. Briefly the case of the claimants before the learned tribunal was that the deceased-Bhanmati died of injuries sustained in an accident which occurred on 02.05.2014 and was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing Registration No. UP-52F-0405. The offending vehicle was insured by the respondent Insurance Company. The claimants were dependant on the deceased. The deceased was 44 years of age at the time of the accident.

4. The learned tribunal in the impugned award found for the claimants by holding that the driver of the offending truck drove negligently and was solely responsible for the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased. Learned tribunal found that the insurance policy terms were breached. The insurance company was absolved of its liability on this footing, and the owner was made liable to pay the awarded compensation.

5. Shri Satendra Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant-owner contends that the learned tribunal erred in law by absolving the Insurance Company of the liability to pay the compensation. The finding that the appellant-owner had breached the terms of the insurance policy since the insured vehicle was being driven by a person who was not in possession of valid driving licence is perverse. The award was illegal and is liable to be set aside.

6. Shri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contends that the award passed by the learned tribunal is lawful and brooks no interference. The liability to pay the compensation is on the owner since there was a breach of the insurance policy.

7. After advancing their arguments, learned counsel for both the parties agree that though many grounds have been pleaded, only the following question fall for consideration in this appeal:-

Whether, in the facts of this case, the learned tribunal erred in law by fixing the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of the offending vehicle?

8. These facts found by the learned tribunal are undisputed. The accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. The offending truck was insured by the respondent-Insurance company.

9. The Insurance company contested the validity of the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle since inception of the claim petition by filing a written statement. The written statement asserts that not only the licence was fake but the owner was fully aware of these facts.

10. The owner as well as the driver in the written statement asserted that the latter was skilled at driving and was in possession of a valid driving licence.

11. It is evident from the facts that the insurance company categorically denied the validity of the licence and pleaded wilful knowledge and liability of the owner in permitting the driver to drive without a valid driving licence. Neither the owner nor the driver appeared in the witness box to establish that the owner had exercised due diligence to ensure that the driver had the requisite driving skill and was in possession of a valid driving licence. Requisite pleadings by the owner/appellant in this regard too are absent.

12. On its part the insurance company introduced form 54 issued by the concerned RTO Office to establish that the driving licence tendered in evidence by the owner of the vehicle as well as the driver was a fake one. Form 54 was never contested by the owner.

13. With these established facts it remains to be seen whether the insurance company can be absolved of its liability and whether entire liability of paying the compensation has to