Appeal by vehicle owner against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court upheld liability on owner and insurance company exoneration due to driver unlicensed for transport vehicle under Section 149(2). Quantum of award also sustained.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2053/2013 and stay petition dismissed; no cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
J U D G M E N T
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2053/2013
Bhagwat Singh.
Vs.
Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment : 7th February, 2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr.Sanjay Nahar, for the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-owner.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - owner of Jeep No.RJ-06-TA-0212 against the judgment cum award dated 3.7.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in motor accident claims case no.302/2010 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondent no.2 was allowed.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2/claimant Mohd. Umar was going on his motorcycle no.RJ-06-SE-4612 towards Bhilwara from Banera. When he reached the Gayatri Ashram Road, the respondent no.3 Bhanwar Khan driving a vehicle No.RJ06.TA.0212 at a great speed, rashly and negligently, dashed into motorcycle
2
from behind. Resultantly, the claimant received several injuries. The jeep was owned by the appellant and insured by the respondent no.1.
The claimant/respondent no.2 filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.9,23,000/- on account of injuries received by him. The claim petition was decided holding the claimant entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.60,331/-.
The learned Tribunal while exonerating the insurance company from the liability to satisfy the award, held the appellant-owner responsible to make payment thereof. It is against the said direction of holding the appellant responsible and exonerating the insurance company to satisfy the award and against the quantum of the award, the appellant owner has approached this Court by way of this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no justification to exonerate the insurance company from satisfying the award and holding the appellant alone responsible for the same. He further submits that the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle and hence, he was also entitled to drive a passenger carrying vehicle.
The vehicle involved in the accident was insured as a transport vehicle. Thus, it is a case of unauthorised person
3
driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held responsible to satisfy the claim as there was a breach of policy conditions.
In my opinion, the question involved in this appeal is no longer res integra. This Court while deciding S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.53/2013 (The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramnivas & Anr.) and other connected appeals, considered the earlier decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue and held that a person holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle would not be authorised to drive a transport vehicle.
It is admitted that in the case at hand, the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was admittedly not having a valid license to drive a transport vehicle. In this background, it is clearly a case of breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, the insurance company was rightly indemnified from satisfying the award looking to the defences available to it under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Thus, the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal holding the owner of the vehicle responsible to bear the burden of the award is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
The quantum of the award is also not excessive and thus, no interference is called for on this issue as well.
In view of the above discussion, this appeal being
4
devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
However, it is made clear that the rejection of this appeal will not be considered to be an impediment on the claimant's right to seek enhancement of the amount.
No cost.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/S.Phophaliya/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurance company is exonerated from paying the award when the driver lacked a valid license for a transport vehicle.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhagwat Singh
Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Sandeep Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
