Delhi High Court
Arvinder Walia (Owner) vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 31 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 31, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 422/2016 & C.M. 18889/2016
ARVINDER WALIA (OWNER) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.C.Mittal, Ms. Ruchika
Mittal, Mr. Anil Kumar Verma,
Ms. Asha Rani & Mr. Y.Mittal,
Advocates
Versus
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K.Soni, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 448/2016 & C.M. 20326/2016
ARVINDER WALIA (OWNER) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.C.Mittal, Ms. Ruchika
Mittal, Mr. Anil Kumar Verma,
Ms. Asha Rani & Mr. Y.Mittal,
Advocates
Versus
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD &
ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K.Soni, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 449/2016 & C.M. 20444/2016
ARVINDER WALIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.C.Mittal, Ms. Ruchika
Mittal, Mr. Anil Kumar Verma,
Ms. Asha Rani & Mr. Y.Mittal,
Advocates
Versus
MAC.APP. 422/2016 Page 1 of 5
MAC.APP. 448/2016
MAC.APP. 449/2016
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K.Soni, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above captioned three appeals arise out of impugned Award of
7th October, 2015 vide which Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(henceforth referred to as the "Tribunal") has awarded compensation of
`14,09,517/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to Claimants on account of death of
Jivaha Yadav, in a vehicular accident which took place on 2nd June, 2013.
2. In this unfortunate accident in question, Ashok Kumar & Vijay
Kumar were also injured and the Tribunal vide common Award of 7 th
October, 2015, has granted compensation of `7,500/- and `57,666/- with
interest @ 9% p.a. to them, which is also under challenge in these
appeals.
3. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"Brief facts of the case are that on 02.06.2013 at
about 06.30 pm, deceased namely Jivachha Yadav
alongwith Ashok and Vijay were going on foot and when
they reched opposite B-243, Okhla Industrial Area,
Galazy Toyota Showroom, offending Echo car bearing
registration No. DL-1LR-5192 driven by respondent no.1
in rash and negligent manner came from Indira Kalyan
Vihar side first hit standing Eicher bearing number DL-1-
MAC.APP. 448/2016
MAC.APP. 449/2016
LM8938 of one Mangl Yadav then hit the deceased as
well as Ajay and Vijay forcefully, due to which they fell
down on the road and sustained grievous and severe
injuries and immediately removed to AIIMS Trauma
Hospital, New Delhi. Later on deceased succumbed to
these injures on 03.06.2013 and injured Vijay and Ajay
were discharged from the AIIMS hospital."
4. To render the impugned Award, the Tribunal has relied upon
evidence of Claimants/ legal heirs of deceased and other evidence on
record. On the strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award has been
rendered.
5. Since these three appeals arise out of one vehicular accident,
therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these
appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
6. The challenge to the impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-Arvinder Walia (hereinafter referred to as the "owner of the
vehicle in question") is not on quantum of compensation awarded but is
on the ground that driver of the insured vehicle was authorized to drive
LMV (Light Motor Vehicles) and his driving license (Ex. R3W1/7) has
been duly verified. It is pointed out that the insured vehicle is a Maruti
Eco No. DL-1LR-5192, which was having a laden weight of 1540 kgs.
Attention of this Court is drawn to copy of Registration Certificate of this
vehicle. Reliance is placed upon Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668 to submit
MAC.APP. 448/2016
MAC.APP. 449/2016
that „Light Motor Vehicles‟, as defined in Section 2(21) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 would include the transport vehicle as per the weight
prescribed in Section 2(21) r/w Section 2(15) and Section 2(48) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and such transport vehicles are not excluded
from the definition of „Light Motor Vehicles‟ by virtue of Amended Act
54 of 1994.
7. It is submitted by appellant's counsel that laden weight of insured
vehicle in question is 1540 kgs, whereas as per the aforesaid provisions of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the transport vehicle having weight of more
than 7,500 kgs would require the driving license valid for commercial
vehicle. As regards, possession of two driving licenses is concerned,
appellant's counsel places reliance upon decision in Sikander Singh Vs.
Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2016 SCC OnLine Del
6399 to submit that merely because driver of the insured vehicle
possessed two driving licenses, would not justify shifting of liability to
pay the awarded compensation upon the owner of the vehicle. So, it is
submitted that the impugned Award deserves to be modified to the extent
of putting the liability on the respondent-Insurer to pay the awarded
compensation.
8. On the contrary, counsel for respondent-Insurer supports the
impugned Award and submits that decision in Mukund Dewangan
(Supra) is under consideration by a larger Bench. Thus, dismissal of these
appeals is sought.
9. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that driver of insured vehicle was
MAC.APP. 448/2016
MAC.APP. 449/2016
holding a valid driving license (Ex.R3W1/7), which was duly verified and
the laden weight of insured vehicle in question is 1540 kgs. In view of
Supreme Court's decision in Mukund Dewangan (Supra), the insured
vehicle in question comes within the definition of LMV (Light Motor
Vehicle), which does not require a commercial license.
10. Regarding putting the liability of paying the awarded compensation
on the owner of the insured vehicle on the ground that driver of the
insured vehicle was possessing two driving licenses is concerned, I find
that in view of the decision in Sikander Singh (Supra), the liability to pay
the awarded compensation cannot be shifted on the owner of the insured
vehicle, as possessing two driving licenses is in violation of Section 6 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for which drivers can be prosecuted but
insurer cannot escape the liability to pay awarded compensation.
11. In the light of aforesaid, impugned Award is modified to the extent
of absolving appellant-Owner from paying the awarded compensation as
the liability to pay the awarded compensation is of the respondent-
Insurer.
12. With aforesaid modification in the impugned Award, the above
captioned three appeals and the applications are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 31, 2018
r
MAC.APP. 448/2016
MAC.APP. 449/2016
