The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Miss Rinki Arora And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 7649 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

*** S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1112/2001

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Suraj Pole, Pali Distt. Pali (Raj.) through Divisional Manager, Abhay Chambers, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.

----Appellant-Defendant Versus

1. Miss Rinki Arora D/o Shri Sampat Raj, by caste Arora Khatri, age 17 years, minor through natural guardian Sampat Raj S/o Shri Gopikishan Arora, R/o 1-K-4, Housing board, Pali (Raj.).

Respondent-Claimant.

2. Dana Ram S/o Genaram, by caste Patel, R/o Khutani Distt. Pali (Raj.).

                                                 ----Respondent-defendant


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. S.R. Paliwal.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Ayush Gehlot for Mr. Rajesh
                               Panwar.



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                Judgment

18/03/2021

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is finally heard and decided.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and award dated 17.09.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Pali in Motor Accident Claim Case No.118/2001 (81/96)

whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,83,230/- as

compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent with an

(2 of 5) [CMA-1112/2001]

interest @ 9% p.a. on account of the injuries sustained by the

respondent No.1 in the accident which occurred on 06.02.1996.

Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the

evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the

parties allowed the claim petition of the respondent No.1 vide its

judgment and award dated 17.09.2001 and awarded a sum of

Rs.1,83,230/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company

submits that admitted facts in the case are that on 06.02.1996,

the accident occurred at 09:00 AM. The driver of the Tractor

namely Dana Ram was holding a learning license. Dana Ram went

to the office of Transport Department on 06.02.1996 after 10:00

AM. On the application preferred by Dana Ram (driver of tractor),

on 06.02.1996, a permanent driving license was issued to him by

the Transport Department. He, therefore, submits that admittedly

the permanent driving license was issued by the Transport

Department after timing of the accident. Therefore, the date of

license cannot be made effective from midnight of 5-6 February,

1996. He further submits that for all intentional purposes, the

permanent driving license was issued by the transport department

after the accident on 06.02.1996. It is further contended that as

per the insurance policy, the driver of the tractor was not holding

the requisite driving license at the time of the accident. Therefore,

in these circumstances, the liability to pay compensation to the

claimant-respondent No.1 cannot be fastened on the appellant

Insurance Company. It is also contended that the amount awarded

by the Tribunal has already been paid to the claimant. In the

circumstances, the appellant may be given right to recover the

amount paid from the driver and owner of the Tractor and thus,

(3 of 5) [CMA-1112/2001]

the counsel, therefore, prays that the finding recorded by the

Tribunal on issue No.3 may be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant- respondent

No.1 submits that the Tribunal has correctly evaluated the

evidence available on record. It is contended that the driver of the

tractor was holding a learning license issued by the competent

authority of transport department on 22.01.1996 and thereafter, a

permanent driving license was issued to him on 06.02.1996. The

driver of the tractor was fully eligible to drive the tractor at the

time of the accident. Thus, the liability to pay compensation has

been rightly fastened upon the insurance company. However,

learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No.1 is not in a

position to dispute the fact regarding the date, time of the

accident and issuance of permanent driving license to the driver of

the tractor in the present case. He further submits that the

amount awarded by the Tribunal has already been disbursed to

the claimant-respondent, therefore, it will be only an academic

exercise to deliberate on the issues in the present case.

I have heard the submissions made at the bar, gone through

the judgment and award dated 17.09.2001 passed by the Tribunal

and also perused relevant record of the case. The admitted facts

in the case are that the driver of the Tractor was holding a

learning license to drive the light motor vehicle issued by the

transport department on 22.01.1996. The learning license was

valid for a period of six months. The accident occurred on 09:00

AM on 06.02.1996 in which injuries were sustained by the

claimant-respondent No.1. On 06.02.1996, the Driver of the

Tractor namely Dana Ram approached the transport department

by way of filing an application for issuance of permanent driving

(4 of 5) [CMA-1112/2001]

license to drive the light motor vehicle. As per the statement of

Prabhu Singh (NAW1), the office of transport department opens at

10:00 AM, therefore, there was no question of issuance of

permanent license to the driver of the Tractor prior to 10: 00 Am

on 06.02.1996. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that permanent

driving license was issued to the respondent No.2 on 06.02.1996

after the accident had taken place, therefore, the same cannot

have retrospective effect from midnight of 05-06 February,1996.

It is a matter of common prudence that if the permanent

driving license has been issued during working hours on

06.02.1996, the same cannot have retrospective effect from

earlier point of time than issuance of the same by the competent

authority. It is not a case where the transport department has

made the permanent license effective from the date earlier than

06.02.1996. Therefore, by treating the license to be effective from

"00" hours of 06.02.1996 is laconic and incorrect. The finding

recorded by the tribunal on issue No.3 with regard to permanent

license being effective from "00" hours of 06.02.1996 is not

sustainable and therefore, same is quashed and set aside.

Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and

in view of the discussions made above, it is held that the

respondent No.2 was not holding a requisite license for driving the

tractor on the date of the accident, therefore, the appellant was

not liable to pay compensation amount in the present case. Since

it is a case of violation of insurance policy and the insurance

company has already satisfied the award by paying the

compensation amount to the claimant-respondent No.1, therefore,

the appellant insurance company shall be free to recover the

(5 of 5) [CMA-1112/2001]

amount paid from the driver/ owner strictly in accordance with

law.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

7-Anil Singh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)