The National Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Regional Manager Lko. vs Indrana and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 369 of 2025

¶3

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Regional Manager Lko.

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
Indrana And Another		.....Resp	ondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Satyajit Banerji : Avdhesh Kumar Kumari, Rakesh K. Srivastava	Pandey, Tripathi,	Barkha Shreshth

¶6

Court No. - 20

¶7

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri Shreshth Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants and perused the record. In spite of service being complete, none appeared on behalf of respondent nos.3 & 4.

¶9

The instant First Appeal From Order has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 10.07.2025 passed in M.A.C.P. No.60 of 2021 (Indra and another Vs. Mandeep Singh and others) passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao.

¶10

The factual matrix of the case is that on 22.01.2021 at about 9:00 p.m., one Mr. Vimal, son of the claimants/respondents 1 & 2, was travelling in a Car bearing registration No.UP75-U-0810 which was driven by one Vipnesh son of Mahesh Pal and other companions and when the car reached near Village Aturdhni on Bangarmau-Lucknow Road, a Truck bearing No.PB-11-CQ-8502, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and without giving any horn or warning violently collided with the said car. As a result of the said accident, the occupants of the car sustained grievous injuries and Vimal succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The family of the deceased filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Unnao bearing M.A.C.P. No.60/2021, seeking compensation on account of the death of

¶11

FAFO No. 369 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

Vimal in a road accident.

¶14

The appellant-respondent herein before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal filed its written statements. Another written statement was filed by Driver of the offending vehicle who denied the claim filed by the claimant-respondent and stated that the truck had a valid permit and fitness certificate and the same was duly insured by the Insurance Company. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties and looking into the pleadings, framed the following issues:

¶15

"1. क्या मृतक िवमल िदनांक 22.01.2021 को समय 9 बजे रात को कार संख्या यूपी 15. यू . 0810 में बैठकर चालक िवपनेश पुत्र महेश पाल व अन्य सािथयों के साथ बैठकर लखनऊ सेल पर बहद ग्राम अतरधनी के पास कार से पहुंचा था तभी ट्रक सं० ०पी० -11- शी०क्यू० -8502 के चालक ने िबना हानर् बजाये ट्रक को तेजी व लापरवाही पूवर्क मलाते हुए कार में टक्कर मार दी िजससे उसमें बैठे चालक िवपनेश . अिखलेश व िवमल को गभीर चोटें आयी तथा दुघर्टनास्थल पर ही मृत्यु हो गयी ?

¶16

2. क्या किथत दुघर्टना के समय प्रश्नगत ट्रक सं० पी०बी० -11- सी०क्यू० -8502 के

¶17

चालक के पास वाहन को चलाने का वैध एवं प्रभावी ड्राइिवग लाइसेंस था ?

¶18

3. क्या किथत दुघर्टना के समय प्रश्नगत ट्रक सं० पी०बी० -11- सी०क्यू० -8502

¶19

िविधवत बीिमत था और उक्त वाहन के समस्त प्रपत्र वैध एवं प्रभावी थे ?

¶20

4 क्या याची प्रितकर पाने के अिधकारी है ? यिद हां तो िकतना और िकस िवपक्षी से ?"

¶21

On the basis of the evidence led by the parties and the documents filed before the Tribunal and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had died on 22.01.2021 because of the accident which occurred at about 09.00 p.m. by a truck bearing no.PB-1 CQ-8502 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license and the vehicle was duly insured by the Insurance Company (appellant herein) and was following all the terms and conditions as per the Insurance Policy.

¶22

Sri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not valid on the date of accident. The Tribunal while dealing with the Issue no. 2 with regard to validity of the driving license of the offending vehicle, has held that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle although

¶23

FAFO No. 369 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

was having driving license but the same was not valid for driving the transport vehicle and the same was valid for driving the non-transport vehicle only. The said driving license, has been annexed along with the instant appeal, which clearly shows that the same was valid for transport vehicle only upto 06.07.2020 and for the non-transport vehicle, the same was valid till 01.09.2033, however, in the present case the accident had occurred on 22.01.2021 and on that date, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license for driving a transport vehicle and still he was driving the transport vehicle which was the offending vehicle with which the accident occurred.

¶26

Mr. Shreshth Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 (claimants), submits that no argument has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant against the claimants, and the only argument raised is against the respondent nos.3 & 4. He further submits that the impugned order, so far as it pertains to the claimants, is concerned, he has no objection if the appeal is allowed and the compensation is not modified.

¶27

In spite of service being effected on respondent nos. 3 & 4, none appears on their behalf.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶29

It is evident that on 22.01.2021 at about 9:00 p.m., when the deceased-Vimal was going in a car, a Truck bearing No. PB-11 CQ-8502, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed into the car of deceased-Vimal with the result Vimal got seriously injured and died on the spot.

¶30

The Tribunal framed the issues as mentioned hereinabove. So far as the Issue no.2 with regard to validity of the license is concerned, the Tribunal came to the finding that the driver of the truck had a valid driving license. A bare perusal of the copy of driving license, which is annexed along with the instant appeal, shows that the driver had a valid driving license till 01.03.2033 for the non-transport vehicle, but the same license was valid for transport vehicle till 06.07.2020. Undoubtedly, the accident occurred on 22.01.2021 and on that date the driver of the

¶31

FAFO No. 369 of 2025

¶32

4

¶33

offending vehicle did not have the valid driving license for driving a transport vehicle.

¶34

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Kumari and others Vs. Prahlad Dev and others reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 193, has held that:-

¶35

"Although the second respondent driver was not holding a valid licence on the date of the accident the appellants were none else than widow and minor children of the deceased. Therefore, the appellants need not repay the amount of Ra 50,000 with interest claimed to have been paid to them. The Insurance Company would be permitted to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle is the same manner as was directed in Nanjappan case, (2004) 13 SCC 224. The appellants would be permitted to proceed and recover the rest of the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle, Respondents 1 and 2 and in accordance with law."

¶36

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224, has held as under:-

¶37

"8 Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur case [(2004) 2 SCC 1 : (2004) 1 Scale 124] that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondent claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs."

¶38

FAFO No. 369 of 2025

¶39

5

¶40

Since in the instant matter, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have the driving license for driving the transport vehicle, hence in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan; (2004) 13 SCC 224 , the Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire compensation amount along with up-to-date interest, to the claimants with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶41

The claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation amount within a period of four weeks from the date of moving an application for withdrawal of the amount. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant herein this Court shall be transmitted within two weeks to the Claims Tribunal to be adjusted against the amount of compensation deposited by the appellant, if the same has already not been transmitted.

¶42

Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed.

¶43

(Prashant Kumar,J.)

¶44

April 29, 2026 Arjun/-

¶45

Digitally signed by :- ARJUN PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Regional Manager Lko. v. Indrana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Regional Manager Lko. v. Indrana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri Kamal Ahmad vs Smt. Munni Devi and 5 Others

Rakesh Kumar and Others vs Shishupal Singh and Others

Surajdin vs Raghuraja and 6 Others

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow Thru. Secy. vs Smt. Parvinder Kaur and Another

Dilip Kumar Verma and 2 Others vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Manager S.B.I., Distt. Faizabad and 2 Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Com. Ltd. Thru. Officer Incharge vs Sujan Singh @ Surjan and 3 Others