Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

National Insurance Co Ltd vs Ashok Kumar And Ors on 5 March, 2021

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

(1 of 6) [CMA-543/2003]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 543/2003

National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Churu, through

Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.

----Appellant

Versus

1. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Laxmi Prakash @ Laxmi Narayan, By

caste Mali, Residetn of Khadiya Bas, Ratangarh, District Churu.

2. Shri Bishan Singh S/o Shri Balle Singh Rajput, Resident of

Village Mahadevwali, District Bikaner. (Bus Driver)

3. Shri Ilias Khan S/o Shri Ajjau Khan Kayamkhani, R/o Ward

No.14, Mohalla Kayamkhaniyon ki Kotadi, Ratangarh, District

Churu. (Bus Owner)

4. Shri Rajkumar S/o Shri Shyam Lal Kacchwal, R/o Village

Golsar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Owner-cum-Driver

of Auto Rikshaw)

5. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office,

Sikar, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office (I), Abhay

Chamber, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Civ.cros.obj.miscapp No. 26/2004

Ashok Kumar S/o Laxmi Prakash alias Laxmi Narayan b/c Mali

R/o Khadiya Bas, Ratangarh, District Churu.

----Cross Objector/Claimant

Versus

1. Shri Bishan Singh S/o Shri Balle Singh Rajput, Resident of

(2 of 6) [CMA-543/2003]

Village Mahadevwali, District Bikaner. (Bus Driver)

2. Shri Ilias Khan S/o Shri Ajjau Khan Kayamkhani, R/o Ward

No.14, Mohalla Kayamkhaniyon ki Kotadi, Ratangarh, District

Churu. (Bus Owner)

3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Churu, through

Divisional Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.

4. 4. Shri Rajkumar S/o Shri Shyam Lal Kacchwal, R/o Village

Golsar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu. (Owner-cum-Driver

of Auto Rikshaw)

5. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office,

Sikar, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office (I), Abhay

Chamber, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.

----Non Cross Objectors/Non-Applicants

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar Mr. Lalit Parihar Mr. N.K. Mehta Mr. Ayush Gehlot

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

05/03/2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and award dated 26.02.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Ratangarh in MACT Case No. 18/2000, whereby learned

Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on

record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the

claim petition of the claimants and awarded Rs.63,000/- as

(3 of 6) [CMA-543/2003]

compensation in their favour on account of the injuries sustained

by Ashok Kumar in the accident which occurred on 25.10.1999.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

submits that the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.3 are clear,

categoric and specific wherein, the fact that the driver of the bus

was not holding a valid driving license on the date of accident, is

proved. He submits that the driver of the bus was having a license

to drive the light motor vehicle and by an endorsement, he was

also permitted to drive the heavy motor vehicle with effect from

07.03.1996 to 06.08.1999 and thereafter the same was renewed

from 28.10.1999 to 27.10.2002. He further submits that in view of

the specific and clear findings on Issue No.3, the driver of the bus

was not holding the valid driving license to drive the bus on the

date of accident. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error

while deciding Issue No.3 against the Insurance Company and

holding that even if the license was not renewed, the driver of the

bus was competent to drive the vehicle. He, therefore, submits

that the findings on Issue No.3 are contrary to the judgment of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari vs

United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2008

ACJ 2654. Learned counsel, while replying to the submissions

made on cross objections, submits that the amount of

compensation awarded in the present case also does not require

any interference by this Court as the Tribunal awarded a 'just

compensation' to the appellant for the injuries suffered in this

case.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. Lalit

Parihar, learned counsel for respondent No.5, submit that it is a

fact that the driver of the bus knew driving, as before and after

(4 of 6) [CMA-543/2003]

the accident the license was validated by the transport agencies

and it cannot be said that the driver of the bus was not eligible to

drive the vehicle on the date of accident, therefore, the findings of

the Tribunal in the present case are just and proper. They further

submit that no interference is warranted on the findings recorded

by the Tribunal on Issue No.3. Learned counsel for the claimant

submits that the amount of compensation which was awarded in

the present case for the injuries suffered by the cross objectioner

Ashok Kumar, is on the lower side. He submits that the cross

objectioner sustained three grievous injuries and was hospitalized

for a period of about seven days and, therefore, a suitable amount

in the present case is prayed to be enhanced.

I have considered the submission made at the Bar and have

gone through the judgment dated 26.02.2003 as well as other

relevant record of the case.

On Issue No.3, the facts have been crystalized to the effect

that the driver of the bus was holding a valid HTV license from

07.03.1996 to 06.08.1999 and thereafter from 28.10.1999 to

27.10.2002. The admitted position which emerges is that the

heavy transport vehicle driving license was in a lapsed condition

on the date of accident i.e 25.10.1999. When the Tribunal

recorded these concrete facts and the fact of the non-renewal of

the license on the date of accident, the Tribunal could not have

recorded the finding that the driver of bus was eligible to drive the

bus on the date of accident and thus, the liability to pay the

compensation could not have been fastened on the Insurance

Company in light of the judgment in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari

vs United India Insurance Company Limited (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as under:-

(5 of 6) [CMA-543/2003]

"Para 18. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that only in the event an application for renewal of licence is filed within a period 30 days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would be renewed automatically which means that even if an accident had taken place within the aforementioned period, the driver may be held to be possessing a valid licence. The proviso appended to Sub-section (1) of Section 15, however, clearly states that the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal in the event the application for renewal of a licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry. It is, therefore, evident that as, on renewal of the licence on such terms, the driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be holding a valid licence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured."

Therefore, Issue No.3 is decided in favour of the Insurance

Company and the Insurance Company is held not liable to pay the

compensation in the present case. In such circumstances, while

applying the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case

of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh

reported in 2004 DNJ (SC) 154, it is ordered that the

compensation will be first paid by the appellant-Insurance

Company in this case and will have right to recover the same in

accordance with law.

As far as the cross objections of the injured Ashok Kumar is

concerned, the cross objectioner received three grievous injuries

for which he was hospitalized for a period of about seven days.