National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Raj Bala W/O Shri Nanak Chand, ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 773 Del

JUDGMENT

V.B. Gupta, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by National Insurance Ltd. against the Interim Award passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the "Act") dated 12.03.08, by Dr. T.R. Naval, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as "Tribunal"), Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi.

2. Brief facts are that on 11.02.07, the deceased Sh. Umesh Kumar was going on his cycle, when he reached at National Highway No. 24, near Toll Tax, Gazipur, Delhi, the offending Truck bearing No. RJ-14-2G-7677 hit the deceased from the back side resulting in his death. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver.

3. Appellant in its written statement admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it vide insurance policy which was valid for the period 26.04.06 to 25.04.07.

4. Vide impugned order, the Ld. Tribunal has granted interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 21.03.07 till realization against the appellant.

5. It has been contended by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the Ld. Tribunal has not considered the fact that in the Criminal Record filed by the Police authorities, it has been clearly mentioned after investigation, that at the time of alleged accident, the driver of the offending vehicle/truck was not having any Driving license. Further, the liability to pay the said interim award should had been on the owner of the offending vehicle as he has breached the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, by deliberately appointing the driver who did not possess any license.

6. PW-1 Smt. Raj Bala, who is mother of the deceased, has deposed before the Tribunal that deceased, Sh. Umesh Kumar died due to road accident on 11.02.07 caused by offending vehicle. It was also established by other documents i.e. FIR bearing No. 97/2007 dated 11.02.07, P.S. Kalyan Puri and the postmortem report which contain the cause of death as hemorrhage and shock consequent upon blunt force impact to the chest, abdomen and pelvis.

7. Section 140 of the Act provides for liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle on no fault. It read as under;

140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.-

(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) x x x x

(3) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

(4) A claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.

8. For getting interim relief under Section 140 of the Act, the Tribunal is only required to see primafacie the factum of accident involving the offending vehicle and factum of death of the person in the road accident.

9. The order of the Tribunal shows that the claimants while seeking the relief under Section 140 of the Act have filed copy of FIR and post-mortem report. In FIR, the number of the vehicle involved in the accident is clearly mentioned. In view of this, the Tribunal has come to a prima facie finding that the vehicle was involved in the accident.

10. As regards the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the Driver had no valid license and therefore insurance company cannot be directed to pay interim compensation, the Apex Court while discussing the question as regards the liability of the owner vis-à-vis the driver being not possessed of a valid license has observed in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and Ors. as under ;

In each case, on evidence led before the claim Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing license for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of license, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving license.

11. In view of the above decision, the contention of the Appellant regarding the Driving license at this stage is not sustainable. Further, according to the written statement, appellant itself is not sure as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having a driving license or not at the time of accident, as in the, written statement it is stated that;

In case, it is found that at the time of the alleged accident the alleged Driver driving the alleged offending VEHICLE No. RJ-14-2G-7677 was either not holding proper, effective & valid Driving license, required under M.V. Act, 1988 and the Rules made there under to drive the said vehicle because it is a breach of the terms and conditions of the relevant Insurance Policy with respect to the persons and classes of persons entitled to drive the said vehicle involved.

12. So, whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid Driving license or not, is a matter of evidence which is yet to be gone into by the Trial Court and these pleas can be raised at the time of final arguments and not at the stage of interim relief.

13. There is no manner of doubt that Section 140 of the Act is a beneficial and social welfare piece of legislation. It is well settled that in construing social welfare legislation, the Courts should adopt a beneficial rule of construction and in any event, that construction should be preferred which fulfillls the policy of legislation. The construction to be adopted on a statue should be such so as to achieve the purposes for which it is enacted and in favor of those in whose interest the Act has been passed.

14. The provisions contained under Section 140 of the Act were brought in the statute book to grant interim relief to the victim of an accident or his dependant/s by way of an interim compensation. This obviously is a beneficial provision to give relief to a person who has suffered grievous injury or to the dependants of a victim who are left without a bread earner. The object thereof cannot be permitted to be frustrated. Of course, if the vehicle in question is not insured at all, the question of making the insurer liable would not arise. But, the insurer cannot, by raising all possible pleas, avoid payment of interim compensation and thereby defeat the object of the provision.

15. There was no occasion for the insurance company to file the present appeal. National Insurance Company Ltd., being a Government undertaking should have taken a sympathetic view in the matter and should not have filed blindly the present appeal so as to deprive the dependants of road accident victim, solace and little comfort by way of meager monetary amount which they are entitled under the law. The Government undertaking must have human approach in such like matters and should not indulge in the jugglery of legal provision so as to deprive the unfortunate victims of their legal dues. It is hoped that the appellant would take special care in such like matters and would not file appeals on frivolous and flimsy grounds so as to deprive the victims of road accident who had lost their sole bread earner.

16. In the present case, appeal filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd., which is public sector undertaking, is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the Tribunal arrived at the appellant's liability to pay interim compensation on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Therefore, there is no scope to challenge the impugned order.

17. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

18. Appellant is directed to deposit the cost by way of a cheque in the name of Registrar General of this Court within four weeks from today.

19. List on 7th July 2008 for compliance.