Allowed

Vijay Kumar Jain v. Smt. Jagmuni and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC16 Nov 2018MAC/621/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Owner-appellant challenged a Claims Tribunal award fixing liability on the owner and exonerating the insurer. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the exoneration of the insurer, holding the driver had a valid license sufficient to cover the transport vehicle per Mukund Dewangan principles.

What did the court decide?

The exonerating order against the insurance company is set aside; the claimants can recover the award from the insurance company within one month.

Vijay Kumar Jain Vs Smt. Jagmuni and Ors. — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 621 of 2013 Reserved on 27/09/2018

¶5

Delivered on.16.11.2018

¶6

Vijay Kumar Jain, S/o Ashok Agrawal, Proprietor Ashok Agencies aged about 30 years, R/o. Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, Police Station & Tahsil Surajpur, Police & Civil District Surajpur (C.G.).

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Jagmuni, Wd./o Late Jansai, (Wrongly typed Dhansai) aged about 25 years,

¶10

Ku. Savita D/o. Late Jansai, aged about 10 years,

¶11

Vikash S/o. Late Jansai, aged about 07 years,

¶12

Vikram S/o Late Jansai, aged about 5 months

¶13

Respondent No. 2 to 4 through their natural guardian mother Smt. Jagmuni, Wd/o Late Jansai, aged about 25 years.

¶14

Jeetu S/o Late Mathu, aged about 66years,

¶15

All above are R/o Village Kanchi, Post Irayee, Police Station. Aasta, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpurnagar Chhattisgarh

¶16

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Bramha Road, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.).

¶17

---- Respondents

¶18

For Appellant : Shri Rahul Bhawani, Advocate on behalf of Shri Manoj Paranjpee, Advocate, For Respondent No. 3 : : Shri H. B. Argawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Deepali Dubey, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya CAV Judgment

¶20

This is owner’s appeal against the award dated 29.04.2013 passed by

¶21

¶22

third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Surguja (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case No. 132/2012.

¶23

(2) Brief facts of the case are that on 26.03.2012 at about 7.50 pm at grampanchayat Parsagudi near Dhaba, Ambikapur road, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. CG15-AC/0640 by its driver Jeevan Tigga, which was owned by appellant/owner - Vijay Kumar Jain, dashed the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG15CA/1937 driven by one Rajesh Kumar Yadav and deceased was pillion rider in the said motor cycle. Due to this collusion, both the persons namely Rajesh Kumar Yadav & Jansai sustained multiple injuries and during the shifting of deceased- Jansai to district hospital Ambikapur, he was declared dead.

¶24

(3) The claimants, who are wife, children and father of deceased Jansia filed the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1999 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased in the motor accident occurred on 26.03.2012.

¶25

(4) After considering the evidence of both the parties learned Tribunal awarded 7,42,000/- alongwith 6% of interest in favour of claimants and exonerated the insurance company from its liability for payment of compensation to the claimants on the ground that at the time of incident driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license of the commercial / transport vehicle, but he was holding the effective and valid licence of the light motor vehicle; and fastened the liability of payment of compensation to the claimants upon

¶26

¶27

the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle.

¶28

(5) Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation and fastening the liability to pay compensation to the claimants upon the owner of the offending vehicle as driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence to drive only light motor vehicle and it is not made to drive the commercial or transport vehicle. In support of his contention, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in “ Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited” reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663.

¶29

(6) Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon owner of the offending vehicle, which does not call for any interference in the instant appeal.

¶30

(7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned award.

¶31

(8) At this juncture, the principles laid down in “ Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited” (supra) is to be noted as the question involved herein, as to whether a driver who is having a license to drive the “light motor vehicle” and who is driving the “transport vehicle” of that class in absence of such an endorsement, was considered and it was held therein as under:-

¶32

¶33

“Held, the effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” related only to categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same – There was no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect – Further held, even otherwise the Form could not control the substantive provisions carved out in Ss. 10(2)(d) and 10(2) (e) and the interpretation of the Form has also to be in tune with the Statement of Objects & Reasons and the provisions of the Act inserted by virtue of the amendment – Interpretation of Statutes – Basic Rules – Harmonious Construction – Subordinate/Delegated Legislation/Rules Under the Act – Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Form 4 and R.14 (before and after 28.03.2001)”

¶34

By applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, it is clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding the valid and effective driving license and even in absence of any endorsement as such in his driving license authorizing him to drive the said transport vehicle, it cannot be held that he was not possessing the valid and effective driving license at the relevant time. The finding so recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in this regard is, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. It is accordingly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding the valid and effective driving license and was not driving the same in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, Respondent No.6/The United India Insurance Company Limited cannot be exonerated from its liability. In consequence, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the respondents/claimants. Now, the claimants are entitled to recover the award of compensation passed by the Claims Tribunal i.e. Rs.7,42,000/- per annum with 6% interest per

¶35

¶36

annum from the date of claim petition from the Respondent No.6/The United Insurance Company within one month from the date of this judgment.

¶37

The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid direction. No order as

¶38

to costs.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

¶41

Amita

Vijay Kumar Jain v. Smt. Jagmuni and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Jain v. Smt. Jagmuni and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Singh Rana Vs Gathia And Ors.

Suresh Dewangan wrongly Mentioned As Sulesh Dewangan Vs Kumari Anita Daughter Of Late Baisakhu And Ors.

Smt. Samta Devi Parakh Vs Sukhdas Satnami and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Shobha and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Jain Vs Smt. Nitu Yadav and Ors.

Santosh Sahu And Anr. Vs Ramakant Prajapati And Ors.