Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Sharma vs Manohardas Yogi on 16 May, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 152 OF 2010
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING
DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO. 2 AT INDERGANJ,
LASHKAR, GWALIOR THROUGH ITS
SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.N.GAJENDRAGADKAR - ADVOCATE )
AND
1 NEERAJ SHARMA S/O SHRI
DEVENDRA NARAYAN SHARMA AGED
34 YEARS, OCCUPATION SERVICE R/O
HOUSING BOARD COLONY, DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH).
2.MANOHARDAS YOGI S/O SHRI
TULSIDAS YOGI, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O
MUDIAN KA KUAN, DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. PARIKSHIT DWIVEDI S/O SHIVRAM
DWIVEDI R/O MUDIAN KA KUAN, DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO. 1 BY SHRI R.P.GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 157 OF 2010
BETWEEN:-
NEERAJ SHARMA S/O SHRI
DEVENDRA NARAYAN SHARMA,
2
AGED 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION
SERVICE, R/O HOUSING BOARD
COLONY, DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH).
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.P.GUPTA- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. MANOHARDAS YOGI S/O SHRI
TULSIDAS YOGI, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O
MUDIAN KA KUAN, DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. PARIKSHIT DWIVEDI S/O SHIVRAM
DWIVEDI R/O MUDIAN KA KUAN,
DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,
CIVIL LINES, DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO. 3 NARVESH SINGH TOMAR - ADVOCATE)
These appeals coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This common order shall govern disposal of M.A.No. 152/2010 and
157/2010 both these appeals are filed by Insurance Company and
Claimant, respectively, against the common award dated 28/10/2009 passed
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Datia in Claim Case No. 101/2008,
whereby, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,36,804/-
alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition to
injured/claimant-Neeraj Sharma, who has sustained grievous injuries in
road accident dated 3/10/2007 and liability for payment of compensation
amount was fastened over Insurance Company as well as driver and owner
of the offending motorcycle jointly and severally.
2. Insurance Company has filed M.A.No. 152/2010 assailing the liability
part of the impugned award as accordingly to learned counsel for the
Insurance Company, on the date of accident, the driver of the offending
vehicle- Manohardas Yogi was possessing license to drive only light motor
vehicle and not motorcycle, while at the time of accident, he was driving
motorcycle which is in violation of Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 where the separate category of license is provided for motorcycle and
light motor vehicle, therefore, liability fastened on the appellant be set aside.
3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Zaharulnisha and others
[2008(12) SCC 385], and submitted that effective driving license means a
driving license for a particular type of vehicle specified in this license.
Vehicles from totally different class from that specified in the license is not
covered.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant while supporting the
impugned award submitted that claimant has filed a separate miscellaneous
appeal vide M.A.No. 157/2010 seeking enhancement of the compensation
amount as according to him, learned Claims Tribunal erred in accepting
permanent disability to the extent of 10% only whereas, as per disability
certificate, claimant sustained disability to the extent of 20% further the
amount awarded under the other heads are also on the lower side.
5. None appeared on behalf of driver and owner of the offending
motorcycle though they were served and represented through counsel
earlier.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is relevant for the
purpose of deciding this appeal which is being reproduced below :
"10. Form and contents of licences to drive -(1) Every
learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving
licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form
and shall contain such information as may be
prescribed by the Central government.
(2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving
licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to
drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following
classes, namely -
(a) motor cycle without gear;
(b) motor cycle with gear;
(c) invalid carriage;
(d) light motor vehicle;
[(e) transport vehicle;]
(i) road-roller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified description."
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zaharulnisha (Supra) after
discussing the provisions of Section 10 of the MV Act for granting the
driving license, has held as under :
"18. In the light of the above settled proposition of law,
the appellant insurance company cannot be held liable
to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for
the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident
which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and
effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of
accident. The scooterist was possessing driving licence
of driving HMV and he was driving totally different
class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of
Section 10(2) of the MV Act."
9. Having considered the law laid down by Hon. Supreme Court, it is
clear that in this case, at the time of accident while driving motorcycle
bearing registration no. MP32MA1720, driver-Manohardas Yogi has
violated the condition of insurance policy, who was having valid license to
drive for light motor vehicle only. There was no endorsement on the license
which permits him to ride motorcycle also as is clear from his Driving
Licence Ex. D/1.
10. In the instant case it is not in dispute that on the date of accident,
offending motorcycle was insured with Insurance Company, therefore, a
bare reading of para 19 of the case of Zaharulnisha (Supra) is relevant,
wherein, Hon. Supreme Court in similar condition has directed the
insurance company to pay the compensation amount first to the claimants
and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, which is
reproduced as under -
"19. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the limited
extent and it is directed that the appellant insurance
company though not liable to pay the amount of
compensation, but in the nature of this case it shall
satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the
amount deposited by it along with interest from the
owner of the vehicle, viz., respondent No.8, particularly
in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him
nor has he chosen to appear before this court to contest
this appeal. This direction is given in the light of the
judgments of this Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v.
Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428(SC) and Daddappa v. Branch
Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., 2008ACJ
581(SC)."
11. As regards M.A.No. 157/2010 filed on behalf of claimant in the
opinion of this Court the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference and therefore, appeal
preferred by claimant is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
12. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the Insurance
Company vide M.A.No. 152/2010 is hereby allowed and while exonerating
the insurance company to pay the compensation, it is directed that the
Insurance Company shall pay the amount of compensation awarded by the
tribunal to the claimant, and thereafter, will be entitled to recover the same
from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, impugned award
is hereby modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.
13. In the above terms, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company vide
M.A.No. 152/2010 is allowed and that of Claimant vide M.A.No. 157/2010
is hereby dismissed.
14. Record of the learned Claims Tribunal be sent back.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
jps/-
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
JAI PRAKASH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c763
3f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, postalCode=474001,
SOLANKI
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D8
C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI
PRAKASH SOLANKI
Date: 2024.05.22 10:31:33 +05'30'
