Delhi High Court
Laxman Singh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & ... on 24 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24th January, 2012
+ MAC APP. 504/2009
LAXMAN SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anand Vardhan Sharma,
Adv.
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R-
2 & 2D.
Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa with
Ms. Angana Goswami, Advs.
for R-3.
+ MAC APP. 96/2012
SMT. RAMLESH SHARMA @ RAMA .......Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa with
Ms. Angana Goswami, Adv. for
R-1.
Mr. Anand Vardhan Sharma,
Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
MAC APP No.504-2009 & 96-2012 Page 1 of 5
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. These are two Cross Appeals against a judgment dated
04.09.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) whereby it awarded a compensation of `
8,90,000/- for the death of Jai Singh Sharma, which occurred in
a motor accident on 26.06.2003.
2. The grievance of the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as
"owner") in MAC. APP. No.504/2009 being owner of Truck
No.HR-55-6608 is that his driver Pappu (the third Respondent
herein) did possess a valid and effective driving licence on the
date of the accident; thus no recovery rights could have been
granted to the Insurer (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) against him.
In MAC. APP. No.96/2012 preferred by Respondents No.2 to
2D (hereinafter referred to as the "Claimants"), the challenge is
to the quantum of compensation on the ground that the
deceased‟s future prospects were not taken into consideration.
3. Adverting to MAC. APP. No.504/2009 preferred by the owner,
the driving licence Mark „A‟ filed during inquiry before the
Tribunal was got verified in pursuance of the order of this Court
dated 22.10.2009 and the same has been found to be valid.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Appellant filed his affidavit Ex. R2W2. The Appellant testified
that a driving licence Mark „A‟ issued by the Licencing
Authority, Agra, U.P. was shown to him by the driver Pappu at
the time he was engaged. The said driving licence (after
renewal Ex. R1W1/A) was valid at the time of the accident on
26.06.2003. The Appellant, therefore, was entitled to be
indemnified by the Insurer. The learned counsel for the
Respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd. submits that as per
Section 6 a person is entitled to hold only one driving licence
except a learner‟s licence or a driving licence issued in
accordance with the provision of Section 18 or a document
authorizing a person to drive a motor vehicle in accordance with
the rules made under Section 139 of the Motor Vehicles Act
(the Act). Thus, the second licence possessed by the second
Respondent was of no consequence. Reliance is placed on a
judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bharat
Kharbanda v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2010 ACJ
1701 wherein it was held that sub-section (i) of Section 6
strictly prohibits holding of two licences.
5. The facts of Bharat Kharbanda (supra) are not attracted to the
instant case. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh &
Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297, it was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme
court that mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or
disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are
not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either
the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the
insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of
negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter
of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles
by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to
drive at the relevant time. It was observed that Insurer must
establish a willful violation of breach of policy condition. In
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC
338, it was held that if at the time of hiring a driver the driver
produces a driving licence, which on the face of it looks
genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the
licence has, in fact, been issued by the competent authority or
not. In this case not only that the Appellant (the owner) says
that the driver showed him the licence Mark „A‟, but the said
licence has been found to be valid on investigation by the first
Respondent (the Insurer). The Appellant could not have been
fastened with the liability to reimburse the amount paid by the
Insurer to the Claimants. In this view of matter MAC. APP.
No.504/2009 must succeed.
MAC. APP. No.96/2012
6. During inquiry before the Tribunal affidavit dated 15.09.2005
of Smt. Ramlesh Sharma, widow of deceased Jai Shiv Sharma
was filed. She testified that her husband was getting a
consolidated salary of ` 4,000/- per month from Advance Agro
International Ltd. He was earning ` 2,000/- per month by
running a newspaper agency under the name and style of Jai
Shiv Newspaper Supplier. In cross-examination a suggestion
was given to Smt. Ramlesh Sharma that her husband was not
working with Advance Agro International Ltd. and was not
running any newspaper supply agency, which, of course, was
denied by her on behalf of the Claimants. It is urged on behalf
of the Claimants that the deceased‟s future prospects were not
considered. No evidence was led with regard to the future
prospects. Even in the absence of any documentary evidence
the Claims Tribunal accepted the deceased‟s monthly income to
be ` 6,000/- and deducted 1/4th towards deceased‟s personal and
living expenses to compute the dependency. The minimum
wages of a matriculate at the time of the accident were ` 3,231/-
only. The compensation of ` 8,90,000/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal was just and reasonable. No case for enhancement of
compensation is made out. The MAC. APP. No.96/2012 is
without any merit.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion MAC. APP. No.504/2009 is
allowed and the Tribunal‟s order granting recovery rights to
National Insurance Co. Ltd. is set-aside. Cross Appeal being
MAC. APP. No.96/2012 is devoid of any merit. The same is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 24, 2012
hs
