Allowed

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prem Lata and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2011FAO/5612/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Appeal by the Insurance Company. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in holding the insurer liable because the driver's licence, valid only for a light motor vehicle, lacked the specific endorsement required to drive a transport vehicle. Consequently, liability for the Motor Accident Claim is excluded from the insurer.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company shall have recovery rights from the owner-driver of the offending vehicle.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prem Lata and Ors. — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

FAO No.5612 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.5612 of 2009 Date of decision:06.09.2011

¶5

New India Assurance Company Limited

...Appellant

Versus

Prem Lata and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.R.C.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr.P.L.Singla, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶13

Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.

¶14

-.-

¶15

JITENDRA CHUAHAN, J.

¶16

The present appeal is directed against the award dated 9.9.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, whereby the claim petition preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was accepted and the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation.

¶17

The facts leading to the present appeal are that the first claimant is the wife and the claimants 2 to 4 are the children of one Mohan Lal, who met with his death in an accident on 30.4.2007 when he, alongwith his son Devender Kumar was going from Old Police Post, Barwala towards Bus Stand, Barnala, on foot. The claimants took the stand that the alleged accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Maxi Pick-up Van bearing registration No.CH-03U-6494, which was driven by respondent

¶18

¶19

FAO No.5612 of 2009

¶20

No.5. The offending vehicle was insured with the appellant. The deceased was aged 58 years at the time of his death and according to the petitioners was earning annually about Rs. 9,000. They claimed a compensation to the tune of `1 lac.

¶21

The opposite parties, the owner and the insurance company, opposed the claim. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties awarded the compensation of ` 7,80,000/- to the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 3, which was to paid by the appellant (Insurance Company) and respondent No.5 (Driver-cumowner of the offending vehicle) jointly and severally.

¶22

Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance

¶23

Company.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that respondent No.1 (driver of the offending vehicle) did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time as the licence issued to him was for light motor vehicle, whereas he was driving a transport vehicle.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has submitted that no evidence has been brought on record by the appellant to prove that the driving licence was not valid or effective on the date of the accident.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶27

case file.

¶28

The question involved in the present appeal is that `whether respondent No.5 was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident.'

¶29

It is proved on record that the accident was caused due to the

¶30

¶31

FAO No.5612 of 2009

¶32

rash and negligent driving of Maxi Pick-up Van bearing registration No.CH-03U-6494, which was driven by respondent No.5 at that time. As per Ex.R2, Certificate issued by the Licensing Authority, it is manifestly clear that the driving licence, Exhibit P7, issued to respondent No.5 is for driving a light motor vehicle, however, at the time of alleged accident, he was driving Maxi Pick-up Van, which is a transport vehicle.

¶33

The question involved in the present appeal is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Appellant V. Angad Kol & Ors., Respondents, 2009 (11) SCC 0356, wherein it has been observed as under:-

¶34

Section 3 of the Act provides for the necessity of driveling licence, stating:

¶35

"3. Necessity for driving licence. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor car or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) ..."

¶36

Section 9 provides for grant of driving licence. Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect :

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

(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

¶40

FAO No.5612 of 2009

¶41

¶42

vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely :-

¶43

(a) to (c) ...

¶44

(d) light motor vehicle;

¶45

(e) transport vehicle;

¶46

(i) road Roller;

¶47

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description."

¶48

The distinction between a 'light motor vehicle' and a 'transport vehicle' is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a 'transport vehicle' and a 'passenger vehicle' can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective licence to drive a 'transport vehicle' whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years.

¶49

There is no dispute that respondent No.5 was having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle. As per Section 3 of the Act, if a person is having licence to drive light motor vehicle, he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3).

¶50

In the instant case, the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle, which requires specific endorsement on the driving licence. However, the driving licence issued to the driver had no specific endorsement in this regard. In the circumstance, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation. However, the learned Tribunal committed an error while observing that the driving licence issued to respondent No.5 was valid and effective driving licence and held the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.

¶51

In view of above discussion, the present appeal is allowed and

¶52

¶53

FAO No.5612 of 2009

¶54

the award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company shall have the recovery rights from the owner-driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.5.

¶55

06.09.2011 mks

¶56

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prem Lata and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prem Lata 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

(O&M) Smt.Mewa Vs Maha Singh

Bishan Dass Vs Shri Jainendra Gurukul

(O&M)Gurcharan Singh Vs Harbans Singh and Ors.

Angad Vs Kesar and Ors.

Sital Parkash Jain Vs Kanta Jain and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs Harbans Singla and Ors.