Delhi High Court
Pabitra Khillar vs Janamojaya Mohapatra on 22 November, 2013
Author: Subhash Chandra Parija
M.A.C.A. No.468 of 2010
05. 22.11.2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal by the claimant is directed against the
award dated 15.03.2010, passed by the 2nd Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Cuttack, in Misc. Case No.377 of 1993, awarding an
amount of Rs.33,000/- as compensation along with interest @7%
per annum, from the date of filing of the claim application, till the
date of payment and directing the owner-opposite party no.1 to
pay the same.
Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits
that as the offending tractor No.OSC-8537 was validly insured by
the Insurance Company-respondent no.2 and the driver of the
offending tractor was possessing a valid and effective driving
licence at the time of the accident, learned Tribunal erred in
exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability and saddling
the liability to pay the compensation amount on the owner of the
vehicle.
In this regard, it is submitted that even conceding
though not accepting that the driver of the offending tractor was
not in possession of the valid driving licence, learned Tribunal
should have directed the Insurance Company to pay the
compensation amount with right to recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle for the alleged violation of the policy condition.
It is further submitted that the assessment of the compensation
amount is not proper and justified and the award of Rs.30,000/- is
very low, keeping in view the nature and extent of injury suffered
by the claimant.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company-
respondent no.2 submits that only the tractor bearing No.OSC-
8537 was covered under a valid policy of insurance and the trolley
attached to the tractor was not insured, no liability should be
uks
2
saddled on the Insurance Company. In this regard, it is submitted
that as the tractor along with trolley is a goods carriage and the
driver of the offending tractor-trolley was possessing a driving
licence authorizing him to drive 'Light Motor Vehicle', there was
gross-violation of the policy condition and therefore learned
Tribunal was justified in imposing the liability on the owner of the
vehicle. It is further submitted that as the tractor-trolley is a
transport vehicle and the driving licence issued to the driver,
authorized him to drive a light motor vehicle, the said driving
licence was not valid and effective for driving a goods carriage,
which comes under the category of a transport vehicle. It is
accordingly submitted that the impugned award is proper and
justified.
On a perusal of the impugned award it is seen that the
offending tractor bearing No.OSC-8537 fitted with a trolley bearing
no.OR-04/4047 dashed against the injured claimant, who was
working as a Dhaba boy and was standing by the side of a wall.
From the police papers it reveals that the offending tractor with the
trolley was driven in a rash and negligent manner for which charge-
sheet has been submitted against the accused driver of the
offending tractor under Sections 279/337/338 I.P.C. Accordingly,
learned Tribunal has come to find that the claimant suffered injury
due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley.
As regard the assessment of the compensation
amount, learned Tribunal has come to find that the injured claimant
was working as a Dhaba boy and was getting Rs.600/- per month
as wages, learned Tribunal further found from the medical
documents when the injured claimant was treated for fracture of
pelvis in S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack from
06.03.1993 to 20.03.1993. Considering the nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant and the period of treatment undergone
by him, learned Tribunal has assessed the pecuniary loss at
3
Rs.25,000/-. Learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs.3,000/-
towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of income.
Coming to the validity of the driving licence, learned Tribunal has
come to find that the DL No.399/91-92 stands in the name of the
accused driver Niranjan Singh, which was valid upto 09.05.2009.
Considering the driving licence (Ext.A), learned Tribunal has come
to find that the same authorized the accused driver to drive a Light
Motor Vehicle (L.M.V.), the accused driver of the offending tractor
was not authorized to driver the tractor. Accordingly, learned
Tribunal has come to find that as there is violation of policy
condition, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the
owner of the vehicle for the act committed by the driver. Learned
Tribunal has therefore proceeded to assess the compensation
amount at Rs.30,000/-, directing the owner of the vehicle to pay
the same along with interest @7% per annum.
Admittedly, as the offending tractor is a motor vehicle,
covered under a valid policy of insurance, it was being driven in a
rash and negligent manner resulting injury to the claimant, it is
futile for the Insurance Company to claim that the trolley attached
to the tractor was not covered under a valid insurance policy. As
the tractor propels the trolley, which is not a motor vehicle itself,
the plea of the Insurance Company that the trolley attached to the
offending tractor was not covered under insurance policy does not
hold good.
Coming to the question of the accused driver
possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the
accident, it is seen that the DL issued by the Licensing Authority
authorizing the holder to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (L.MV.).The
definition of Light Motor Vehicle as per Section 2(21) of the M.V.
Act, 1939, also includes a transport vehicle and admittedly the
tractor is a Light Motor Vehicle, it cannot be said that the accused
4
driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the
time of accident.
In view of the above, the findings of the learned
Tribunal holding that the driver was not authorized to drive the
tractor and accordingly fixing the liability on the owner of the said
tractor is not proper and justified and the same is accordingly set
aside. The Tractor being covered under a valid policy of insurance
and the driver being in possession of a valid driving licence, the
Insurance Company is held liable to pay the compensation amount.
As regard the plea of enhancement of the
compensation amount as the assessment has been made by the
learned Tribunal taking into consideration the nature of injury
suffered by the claimant and the treatment undergone I do not find
any justification to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the
Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded compensation
amount of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @7% per annum from
the date filing of the claim application.
However, as the claim application is of the year 1993,
the award of interest @7% per annum is modified and reduced to
6%. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to awarded compensation
amount of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @6% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim application, which is payable to the
Insurance Company-respondent no.2.
M.A.C.A. is accordingly disposed of.
.........................
S.C.Parija, J.
