Allowed

Mohan Singh v. National Insurance Company Limited

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2023CCOMA/21/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed appeals by the Insurance Company exonerating it from liability for compensation due to the driver's expired license. The court applied a 'pay and recover' doctrine, directing the insurer to pay claimants while preserving the right to recover amounts from the owner and driver. It also enhanced award amounts for some claimants based on settlement tables.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company allowed appeals; directed to pay compensation to claimants subject to right of recovery from owner/driver; enhanced amounts awarded to some claimants.

Mohan Singh Vs National Insurance Company Limited — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[CMA-245/2005]

¶2

(1 of 9)

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

(1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 245/2005

¶5

National Insurance Co Ltd. Panchshati Circle, Sardulganj, Bikaner through Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Residency Road, Jodhpur

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sajjan Kanwar W/o Late Bhawani Singh, resident of Village and Post Untwalia, Tehsil & District Nagaur

¶9

Chandra Prakash S/o Late Bhawani Singh, minor, through mother Sajjan Kanwar W/o Late Bhawani Singh, resident of Village and Post Untwalia, Tehsil & District Nagaur

¶10

Pankaj Kanwar D/o Late Bhawani Singh, minor, through mother Sajjan Kanwar W/o Late Bhawani Singh, resident of Village and Post Untwalia, Tehsil & District Nagaur

¶11

Pushpa Kanwar D/o Late Bhawani Singh, resident of Village and Post Untwalia, Tehsil & District Nagaur

¶12

Madan Kanwar W/o Late Chain Singh, resident of Village and Post Untwalia, Tehsil & District Nagaur

¶13

Om Singh S/o Late Chain Singh, minor, through mother Madan Kanwar W/o Late Chain Singh, resident of Village and Post Untwalia, Tehsil & District Nagaur

¶14

Panney Singh S/o Late Chain Singh, minor, through mother Madan Kanwar W/o Late Chain Singh, resident of Village and Post Untwalia, Tehsil & District Nagaur

¶15

...Applicants

¶16

Gopalram S/o Late Girdhari lal, resident of near the temple of Panchmukha Balaji, Rani Bazar, Bikaner (Bus owner)

¶17

Ramswaroop S/o Prahladram, resident of village Sindhu, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Bus Driver)

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

Connected With

¶20

(2) S.B. Civ.cros.obj.miscapp No. 21/2005

¶21

Mohan Singh S/o Chain Singh, resident of Village and Post Untwalia, Tehsil & District Nagaur

¶22

----Appellant

¶23

Versus

¶24

National Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Panchshati Circle, Sardulganj, District Bikaner and

¶25

[CMA-245/2005]

¶26

(2 of 9)

¶27

Divisional Office at Residency Road, Jodhpur Rajasthan

¶28

Gopal Ram S/o Late Sh. Girdhari Ram, reident of Near Panchmukha Hanuman Temple, Rani Bazar, Bikaner

¶29

Ram Swaroop S/o Prahalad Ram, resident of village Sindhu Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner

¶30

----Respondent

¶31

(3) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 243/2005

¶32

Sajjan Kanwar W/o Late Bhawani Singh

¶33

Chandra Prakash Singh S/o Late Bhawani Singh

¶34

Pankaj Kanwar D/o Late Bhawani Singh

¶35

Pushpa Kanwar D/o Late Bhanwani Singh

¶36

Madan Kanwar W/o Late Chain Singh

¶37

Om Singh S/o Late Chain Singh

¶38

Panney Singh S/o Late Chain Singh [all residents of village Untwalia Tehsil & and District Nagaur]

¶39

----Appellant

¶40

Versus

¶41

Gopal Ram S/o Late Girdhari Ram, resident of Near Panchmukha Hanumaji Temple, Rani Bazar, Bikaner

¶42

Ram Swaroop S/o Prahalad Ram, resident of Sindhu, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner

¶43

National Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Branch Manager, Panchshati Circle, Sardulganj, District Bikaner and Divisional Office at Residency Road, Jodhpur

¶44

----Respondent

¶45

(4) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 244/2005

¶46

National Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Branch Manager, Panchshati Circle, Sardulganj, District Bikaner and Divisional Office at Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶47

----Appellant

¶48

Versus

¶49

Laxman Singh S/o Jagmal Singh, resident of Village and Post Untwalia, Tehsil & District Nagaur

¶50

Gopal Ram S/o Late Girdharilal, resident of Near temple of Panchmukha Balaji, Rani Bazar, Bikaner

¶51

Ram Swaroop S/o Prahalad Ram, resident of village Sindhu Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner

[CMA-245/2005]

(3 of 9)

----Respondent

(5) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 271/2005

¶56

National Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Branch Manager, Panchshati Circle, Sardulganj, District Bikaner and Divisional Office at Residency Road, Jodhpur..

¶57

----Appellant

¶58

Versus

¶59

Panney Singh S/o Chain Singh minor through mother Madan Kanwar W/0 Lt. Chain Singh, resident of Village and Post Untwalia, Tehsil & District Nagaur

¶60

Gopal Ram S/o Late Girdharilal, resident of Near Temple of Panchmukha Balaji, Rani Bazar, Bikaner

¶61

Ram Swaroop S/o Prahalad Ram, resident of village Sindhu Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner

¶62

----Respondent

¶63

(6) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 285/2005

¶64

National Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Branch Manager, Panchshati Circle, Sardulganj, District Bikaner and Divisional Office at Residency Road, Jodhpur..

¶65

----Appellant

¶66

Versus

¶67

Jagmal Singh S/o Sumer Singh, resident of Gadhliyasar, PS Shri Balaji, District Nagaur

¶68

Gopal Ram S/o Late Girdharilal, resident of Near Temple of Panchmukha Balaji, Rani Bazar, Bikaner

¶69

Ram Swaroop S/o Prahalad Ram, resident of village Sindhu Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner

¶70

----Respondent

¶71

(7) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 366/2005

¶72

National Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Branch Manager, Panchshati Circle, Sardulganj, District Bikaner and Divisional Office at Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶73

----Appellant

¶74

Versus

¶75

Mohan Singh S/o Chain Singh, resident of Village and Post Untwalia, Tehsil & District Nagaur

¶76

Gopal Ram S/o Late Girdharilal, resident of Near Temple of

¶77

[CMA-245/2005]

¶78

(4 of 9)

¶79

Panchmukha Balaji, Rani Bazar, Bikaner

¶80

Ram Swaroop S/o Prahalad Ram, resident of village Sindhu Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner

¶81

----Respondent

¶82

For their respective parties

¶83

: Mr. Sanjeev Johari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Lalit Parihar, for the Insurance Company

¶84

: Mr. Prasant Panwar, for the claimants

¶85

: None present for the driver and owner

¶86

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Judgment

¶87

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/10/2023

¶88

The aforesaid civil misc. appeals preferred by the Insurance company (SB CMA Nos.245/2005, 244/2005, 271/2005, 285/2005 and 366/2005), claimants (SB CMA No.243/2005) and SB Civil Cross Objection Misc. Application No.21/2005 filed in SB CMA No.245/2005 by the claimant-Mohan Singh have been heard and are being decided by this common judgment as they have been preferred against the common judgment and award dated 16.6.2004 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the learned tribunal for short) in claim case No.193/2000 (Sajjan Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Gopal Ram & Ors), No.257/2000 (Laxman Singh Vs. Gopal Ram & Ors.), No.258/2000 (Panney Singh Vs. Gopal Ram & Ors.), No.75/2001 (Mohan Singh Vs. Gopal Ram & Ors.) and No.76/2001 (Jagmal Singh Vs. Gopal Ram & Ors.).

¶89

The facts in brief are that on 21.4.2000 when the claimants Laxman Singh, Panney Singh, Mohan Singh and Jagmal Singh were

¶90

[CMA-245/2005]

¶91

(5 of 9)

¶92

travelling in jeep bearing No. RJ-19-C-3415 which was being driven by the deceased Bhawani Singh from village Uthwaliya to Bambu, bus driver Ramswarooop while driving the bus no.RJ-07-P-0876 rashly and negligently, hit the jeep, resulting into death of Bhawani Singh and simple and grievous injuries to other claimants. Thus, claiming the different amount of compensation, the claim petitions were filed by the claimants.

¶93

In the aforesaid appeals preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learned tribunal has wrongly decided issue no.7. Issue no. 7 is reproduced as under:-

¶94

“¼7½ D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; vizkFkhZ la0 2 jkeLo:i ds ikl okgu pykus dk os/k ,ow izHkkoh Mz~kbZfoax ykbZlsUl ugh Fkk] blfy;s chek daiuh dk nkf;Ro ugh gS\

¶95

vizkFkhZ la03”

¶96

Learned Senior Counsel submits that it an admitted position that the driving license of the driver was valid from 17.7.1996 to 16.7.1999 and the accident occurred on 21.4.2000. Thus, the driving license had expired 9 months before the date of accident. However, learned Tribunal while deciding the issue no.7 gave a finding that since the appellant-Insurance Company failed to prove the aforesaid issue, therefore, it is liable to indemnify the claimants.

¶97

Learned Senior Counsel while relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Ishwar Chandra

¶98

& Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Ors. reported in

¶99

[CMA-245/2005]

¶100

(6 of 9)

¶101

(2007) 10 SCC 650 and Ram Babu Tiwari Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd & Ors reported in (2008) 8 SCC 165 submits that though as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the event application for renewal of license is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would be renewed automatically, which means that even if an accident had taken place within the aforementioned period, the driver shall be deemed to be possessing a valid license, but in the present case, the accident occurred on 21.4.2000 and the license expired on 16.7.1999 and there is no evidence available on record to show that the driver had applied for renewal of his license. Thus, in the present case, the driver did not possess a valid driving license at the time of accident and therefore, there was a violation of policy conditions for which the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable.

¶102

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that in case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellantInsurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, then also, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4919/2022), decided on 26.7.2022) and this Court in Baksha Ram Vs. Ladu Singh & Ors (SBCMA No.626/2002), decided on 16.9.2019, if there was a gap in the renewal of driving license, then the Insurance Company is absolved from its liability, however, can be directed to pay and recover the award amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

¶103

[CMA-245/2005]

¶104

(7 of 9)

¶105

Despite service, nobody appeared on behalf of the driver and owner.

¶106

Heard learned counsel for the parties in the appeals filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.

¶107

10. This Court in Baksha Ram (supra) has held as under:

¶108

“Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Counsel for the claimants also supports the doctrine of pay and recovery by citing judgment of Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors., reported in (2019) 7 SCC 217, relevant portion of which is as under:

¶109

“7. On the issue of liability to pay the compensation awarded, we affirm the view taken by the High Court that the Respondent-Insurance Company is absolved of the liability to bear the compensation, as evidence has been produced from the office of the Regional Transport Office to prove that the drivers of the two offending trucks were driving on the basis of invalid driving licenses. It is also relevant to note that the owners and drivers of the offending trucks have not appeared at any stage of the proceedings, including this Court.

¶110

7.1. This Court in Shamanna & Ors. v. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the principle of ‘pay and recovery’ can be ordered to direct the Insurance Company to the pay the victim, and then recovery the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶111

7.2. We deem it just and fair to direct the Respondent-Insurance Company to pay the enhanced amount of compensation as indicated in Para 6 above, to the Appellant within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this judgment. The Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to make out a Demand Draft in the name of the Appellant, which can be used for his

¶112

[CMA-245/2005]

¶113

(8 of 9)

¶114

care for the rest of his life. The Respondent-Insurance Company is entitled to recovery the amount from the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks.””

¶115

In view of the above, the civil misc. appeals (SBCMA Nos.245/2005, 244/2005, 271/2005, 285/2005 and 366/2005) filed by the appellant-Insurance Company are allowed and it is held that the appellant-Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability. It is further directed that the appellant-Insurance Company shall at first pay the award amount to the claimants and thereafter, be at liberty to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

¶116

In so far as the cross objection (SB Civil Cross Objection Misc. Application No.21/2005) and the civil misc. appeal (SBCMA No.243/2005) preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the award amount are concerned, the same are disposed of in view of the agreement arrived at between the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and claimants. Thus, the enhanced amount of compensation is as enumerated in the following tables:

¶117

SB Civil Misc. Cross Objection No.21/2005 in SBCMA No.245/2005:

¶118

		Total
For Permanent Disablement (A)	=Rs.25,000+Rs. 5,000*30	Rs.1,75,000/-
Pain and Suffering (B)	=25%*1,75,000	Rs. 43,750/-
Medical Expenses (C)		Rs. 20,000
Total compensation awardable (D=A+B+C)		Rs.2,38,750/-
Compensation already awarded (E)		Rs. 1,50,000/-
Remaining Amount (F=D-E)		Rs. 88,000

¶119

(9 of 9)

¶120

[CMA-245/2005]

¶121

Interest @6% p.a. from date of award i.e. from 21.03.2001 (G)	=5,325*23	Rs.1,22,475/-
Enhanced compensation		Rs. 2,11,225/
(F+G)

¶122

SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.243/2005

¶123

		Total
Annual income of the deceased + (40%) increase in income + 17 multiplier – deduction (one fourth of the income) (A)	Rs.4000/+ 40% x 12 x 17-1/4	Rs.8,56,800/-
Other conventional heads (B)		Rs 77,000/-
Total compensation awardable (C=A+B)		Rs.9,33,800/-
Compensation already awarded (D)		Rs.4,58,200/-
Remaining Amount (E=C-D)		Rs. 4,75,600/-
Interest @6% p.a. from date of award i.e. from 20.07.2000 (F)		Rs. 6,56,328/-
Enhanced Award (E+F)		Rs. 11,31,928/-

¶124

It is made clear that the appellant-Insurance Company shall pay the aforesaid enhanced amount and then will be entitled to recover the entire awarded and enhanced amount from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

¶125

All the interlocutory applications as well as the stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶126

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶127

243-CPGoyal/-

Mohan Singh v. National Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Singh v. National Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Smt. Sharda Devi and Ors.

Ghishi Bai Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

A.C.T.O. Vs M/S Sunil Trading Company

Mukesh Prajapat Vs Sapna Prajapat

Bihari Lal Vs Nathu Singh