Allowed

Branch Manager Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pramila Devi

Chhattisgarh HC19 Feb 2024MAC/377/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance appeal against a motor accident award where the driver held only a light motor vehicle licence but drove a motorcycle. Relying on Oriental Insurance Co. v. Zaharulnisha, the High Court held there was no valid licence, allowed the appeal, exonerated the insurer subject to pay-and-recover from the owner-cum-driver.

What did the court decide?

Insurer exonerated from liability; directed to first satisfy the award and then recover from owner-cum-driver of the offending motorcycle.

Branch Manager Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Company Ltd… — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 377 of 2017

¶5

1 - Branch Manager Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office- Shivmohan Bhavan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Police Station Pandri, Raipur, Tah. And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ................Insurer Of Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G.10-N C-7469 ---- Appellant

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 - Pramila Devi W/o Kamakhya Singh, Aged About 40 Years R/o Near J.J.Hospital, Gurunanak Chowk, Torwa, P.S. Torwa, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Kamakhya Singh S/o Late Sharda Singh, Aged About 42 Years R/o Near J.J.Hospital, Gurunanak Chowk, Torwa, P.S. Torwa, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................Claimants

¶10

3 - Bhagwat Lashkar S/o Chandram Lashkar, Aged About 27 Years R/o Hindadih, P.S. Sipat, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................Owner And Driver Of Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G.10-N C-7469 ---- Respondents

¶11

Mr. Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. A. L. Singroul, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 2. Mr. Arvind Prasad on behalf of Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

¶12

____________________________________________________________

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

20.02.2024

¶16

Challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 24.12.2016 Passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 868/2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, CG. By which the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/- in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / claimants on account of death of their son deceased Rahul Singh in an accident that occurred on 02.06.2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (motorcycle) bearing registration No. CG 10 NC 7469 by respondent No. 3 / driver and owner.

¶17

¶18

The issue involved in this appeal as to whether the respondent No. 3 / driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company submits that the insurance company took a specific plea in the written statement that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license, which has been duly proved by leading cogent and prudent evidence of the officer of the insurance company as well as employee of the concerned RTO. He further submits that the details of the driving license was also exhibited and as such, the respondent No. 3 / driver and owner has also filed the driving license before this Court which also indicate that on the date of accident i.e. 02.06.2014, the driver was holding license only to drive light motor vehicle and transport motor vehicle but he did not have any driving license to drive the motorcycle. He submits that the case in hand squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. v. Zaharulnisha and others reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3251 and an unreported decision of this Court dated 31.08.2017 rendered in MAC No. 631 of 2017 connected with MAC No. 1109 of 2017. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and the insurance company may be exonerated for payment of compensation.

¶20

Per contra, Mr. Singroul and Mr. Prasad vehemently oppose the submissions and submit that the driver of the offending vehicle was having license to drive light motor vehicle and transport vehicle, therefore, when he could drive the vehicle of higher category, he could drive the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle. They further submit that the appellant could not prove the defense under Section 149 (2) of the MV

¶21

¶22

Act by cogent and prudent evidence therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal may not be disturbed. Lastly, Mr. Singroul submits that in the event the appeal being allowed, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 order of pay and recover may be passed.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record.

¶24

In the case in hand, the offending vehicle is a motorcycle. The insurance company has filed its written statement and specifically stated that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. This fact has been proved by the insurance company by calling the witness Rishab Pandey (DW-1) who has deposed in this line. Vijya Tiwari (DW-3), who is the Assistant Grade – II Regional Transport Office at Lagra Bilaspur also deposed in the same line. Ex. D-5 is the particular of the license which indicates that it was issued to drive Light Motor Vehicle only with effect from 18.01.2006 by RTO, Bilaspur and was valid from 18.01.2006 to 17.01.2026. Ex. D-6 is also particular of the license which indicates that the license was issued for driving of Light Motor Vehicle and non transport. EX. D-8C copy of the record maintained by the RTO indicates that the license was issued for Light Motor Vehicle only non transport vehicle. Copy of the license which was filed by respondent No. 3 also indicate that the license was only for Light Motor Vehicle and there was an endorsement for transport vehicle.

¶25

¶26

To appreciate the controversy involved in this case, Section 10 of the MV Act appears necessary to be taken note of, which is reproduced as under:

¶27

“10. Form and contents of licences to drive.-

¶28

(1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

¶29

(2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:-

¶30

(a) motor cycle without gear;

¶31

(b) motor cycle with gear;

¶32

¶33

(d) light motor vehicle;

¶34

[(e) transport vehicle;]

¶35

(i) road-roller;

¶36

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.”

¶37

Section 10 referred to above thus indicates that a distinct class

¶38

has been made for different motor vehicles, and that one should have the driving licence for the vehicle which he or she intends to drive. Dealing with an identical question it has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company v. Zaharulnisha (supra) as under:

¶39

“18. In the light of the above-settled proposition of law, the appellant-insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooteristwas possesing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act.”

¶40

Thus in the light of above factual and legal position this Court

¶41

has no hesitation to say that on the date of accident, the driver of the

¶42

¶43

vehicle in question was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle which he drove on the fateful day. From perusal of the driving licence and the verification details, this fact stands further fortified.

¶44

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant – Insurance Company is exonerated of its liability to satisfy the award. However, considering judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others (supra) , this Court directs the appellant to first satisfy the award and then it may recover from the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle.

¶45

Appeal is thus allowed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶48

PAWAN

Branch Manager Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pramila Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pramila Devi

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

Chheduram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Indira Bai Netam Vs Doctor Gaurav Ahluwaliya

Smt. Mamani Vishwas Vs Raju Ram Yadav

Arun Kumar Patel and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Janshi Bai

Sulendra Kumar Yadav Vs Smt. Bhagwati Devi