Back
2010 Supreme(MP) 1088
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT INDORE BENCH
Prakash Shrivastava, J.
Rajmal S-o Mishrilal Jain (M-S) - Appellant
Versus
Sanjay S-o Prakashchandra and Others - Respondent
Misc. Appeal Nos. 261 to 263 of 2007
Decided On : 23-08-2010
For appellant :Manish Jain ; For respondent No.3:Preeti Saxena ; For respondent No.5 (M.A.No. 263/07): Madhu Bhatia
The Insurance Company is required to prove that the owner had not taken due care at the time of engaging the driver and had permitted the driver to drive the vehicle in spite of the knowledge that the driver was having a fake license in order to repudiate its liability.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 173 - 149(2)(a)(ii) - 2003 ACJ 611 - 2006 ACJ 2161 - 2009 ACJ 1510 - 2009(11) MPWN 62 - 2008 ACJ 1307 - 2008 ACJ 2161 - 2008 ACJ 2855 - 2008 ACJ 776 - 2010 ACJ 1280
Fact of the Case:
The owner of the offending vehicle appealed challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded compensation to the claimants and exonerated the Insurance Company due to the driver not having a valid license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the owner had taken due care at the time of employing the driver and had employed him believing the driving license to be genuine. The tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company.
Issues: Validity of the driver's license, breach of policy conditions, and the liability of the Insurance Company.
Ratio Decidendi: The Insurance Company is required to prove that the owner had not taken due care at the time of engaging the driver and had permitted the driver to drive the vehicle in spite of the knowledge that the driver was having a fake license in order to repudiate its liability.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the appellant owner are allowed, indicating that the tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company.
JUDGMENT :
These appeals are by the owner of offending vehicle under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 23 August, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 213/05, Claim Case No. 221/05 and Claim Case No. 243/05, by which the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the claimants and has exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence to drive the vehicle. For the sake of convenience facts of M. A. No. 261/07 have been noted.2. The respondent/claimant had filed the claim petition pleading that on 4-10-1998, the respondent No. 1 was going from Jhabua to Thandla, on his scooter, when accident was caused by the bus bearing registration No. M.P. 11-A-3574, which was driven by the respondent No. 2-Juwan Singh, in a rash and negligent manner/The appellant was the owner of the bus and the bus was insured with respondent No. 3 Insurance Company.
3. The Tribunal by the impugned award granted compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the respondent No. 1 along with 6% interest from the date of award. The Tribunal found that the respondent No. 2 was driving the offending bus without any valid licence and there was breach of policy condition, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation amount. The Tribunal directed that the Insurance Company will deposit the compensation amount and will be entitled to recover it from the driver and owner of the vehicle. The other Claim Cases No. 221/05 and 243/05, were also decided by the same impugned award on the same terms.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in exonerating the Insurance Company without properly appreciating the driving licence of the respondent No. 2 and ignoring the fact that the said driving licence was subsequently renewed by the RTO Dahod and that the appellant had not caused any wilful breach of policy conditions.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that the finding which has been arrived at by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is just and proper and the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated since at the time of accident the driver of the offending bus was not having valid licence to drive the vehicle.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, the owner of the vehicle Hukumchand was examined as N.A.W-4, who, stated that the respondent No. 2-Juwan Singh was driving the vehicle for last several years. He had seen the driving license of Juwan Singh while employing him in service and that driving licence was containing the seal of R.T.O. He has also stated that before engaging Juwan Singh, he had made an enquiry from the previous employers Pradeep Bus, Agrawal Bus etc. and he was informed by them that Juwan Singh was an experienced and good driver. He has also stated that the driving licence issued to Juwan Singh was valid for the period 30-6-1989 to 29-6-1992. Thereafter, it was renewed on 18-10-1993 and was against renewed from RTO, Dahod from 3-1-1997 to 2-1-2000. Thus, from the statement of Hukumchand, it is apparent that he had made enquiry before keeping Juwan Singh in his employment as driver. His statement that he had not made investigation, relating to the genuineness of the document relates to making enquiry from different RTO, but apparently, his statement indicates that he himself had got licence renewed from RTO Dahod. No contrary evidence has been adduced by the Insurance-Company to show that the driving licence was not renewed from RTO Dahod. There is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the licence Exhibit D/6, does not appear to be forged on the face of it since it bears the licence number of the RTO and it is in the prescribed form.
8. The Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance-Company by placing relianc
