Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd. vs Kauser Jahan & Ors. on 5 February, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 5th February, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 657/2010
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.S.K.Ray, Advocate.
Versus
KAUSER JAHAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Vinod Sharma, Advocate
for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated
05.05.2010, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a
sum of Rs.78,705/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company submitted that the present appeal is filed mainly on the ground
that respondent No.2/driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid
driving licence to drive Heavy Motor Vehicle (Passenger) on the date of the
accident, i.e., 18.03.2006, despite that the learned Tribunal had not granted
recovery rights in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and against
the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that Section 10 of the Principal Act was
amended vide Gazette Notification dated 09.10.1994, wherein it is
mentioned that sub-section (2) for clauses (e) to (h) shall be substituted by
clause (e) transport vehicle. Moreover, as per the driving licence noted
above, the holder was authorized to drive the transport vehicle.
4. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that driving licence of
respondent No. 2 was valid from 04.06.2004 to 03.06.2007. Photocopy of
the same is annexed as Annexure-A3. It is specifically mentioned therein
that the holder of the licence was authorized to drive transport vehicle.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the instant
appeal, vide order dated 24.02.2011, this Court directed the
appellant/Insurance Company to verify the aforementioned driving licence
of respondent No.2. Accordingly, verification report dated 22.03.2011 is
annexed as Annexure A-5, wherein validity of the aforesaid licence is
mentioned as 04.06.2007 to 03.06.2010 and 04.06.2010 to 03.06.2013. In
the column of type of licence at serial No.6, it is specifically stated that
"LMV (PE) ENDORS FOR 09.07.93 & ENDORS FOR TV ON
20.11.2006."
6. Admittedly, the aforesaid verification report has been filed by the
Investigator of the appellant/Insurance Company.
7. In the present case, vehicle in question is a passenger vehicle,
therefore, as per the amendment in Section 10 of the Principal Act, as noted
above, I am of the considered opinion that transport vehicle includes the
passenger vehicle too. Besides, the accident had taken place on 18.03.2006
and the driving licence was issued on 11.11.1991. It is also important to
note that the driver was eligible to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle w.e.f.
09.07.1993. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the owner of
the vehicle has violated the terms of the policy. Therefore, the insurance
company is liable to pay the compensation as envisaged in the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any discrepancy in the
impugned order dated 05.05.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal. The
same is accordingly dismissed.
9. Statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant/Insurance
Company.
SURESH KAIT, J.
FEBRUARY 05, 2014
Sb/jg
