Karnataka High Court
The National Insurance Company Limited ... vs M.R. Shantamma And Ors. on 11 December, 2007
Equivalent citations: ILR2008KAR1484, AIR 2008 (NOC) 1434 (KAR.), 2008 (4) ABR (NOC) 692 (KAR.), 2008 (3) AIR KANT HCR 119, 2008 A I H C 2305, (2008) 4 ACJ 2287, (2009) 1 ACC 518, (2008) 67 ALLINDCAS 769 (KAR), (2008) 3 TAC 891
Author: V.G. Sabhahit
Bench: V.G. Sabhahit, Jawad Rahim
JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit, J.
1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.10.2002 passed by the M.A.C.T., Bangalore City (S.C.C.H. 14) in M.V.C. 1679/00.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurance company and the Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a claim petition, M.V.C. 1679/00 seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the death of one Dhruv Kumar, husband of the I claimant and father of claimants 2 and 3 due to injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 9.3.2000. It is the case of the claimants that as on the said date, at about 1.10 p.m., Dhruv Kumar along with Ramachandrappa was proceeding on a scooter bearing No. KA-07-H-9741 from Venkatapura to Jangamakote on Badani Tank Bund road from west to east slowly and cautiously. At that time, a tempo bearing No. KA-40/519 came from the opposite direction in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the scooter due to which the rider and pillion fell down, and Dhruv Kumar sustained injuries and later succumbed to it. It is averred that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,00/- p.m. and the claimants laid the claim petition against the respondents being owner, driver and insurer of the tempo. Respondent-2 was deleted and respondents 1 and 3 appeared and resisted the petition.
3. In its objection statement, the insurance company contended that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the tempo did not have a valid driving licence as the same had expired, and therefore, the company was not liable to pay compensation as per the terms of the policy though the vehicle was insured with it. It was contended by the owner and claimant that though the driver had no licence to drive the tempo as on the date of the accident, it was renewed later and therefore, the contention of the insurance company was baseless and that the company was liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and evidence was recorded. On behalf of the insurance company, RW1 was examined and he produced Ex.R1, driving licence extract which shows that as on the date of accident, i.e. 9.3.2000, the licence had expired and it was later renewed from 18.4.2000 to 17.4.2003. Having regard to the said document and the evidence of RW1, the Tribunal held that though the driver did not hold a valid licence, it was renewed later which would relate back to the date of expiry, and the insurance company was liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,41,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. and directed the insurance company to deposit the same. Being aggrieved by the fastening of liability on respondent-3, the insurance company is in appeal before this Court.
4. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that as on the date of the accident, viz., 9.3.2000, the driver of the tempo had no valid driving licence and since there was a breach of the conditions of the policy, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner. He relied on the decision of the apex court in the case of Ishwar Chandra and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2007 ACJ 1067 in support of the contention that if as on the date of the accident licence had expired and it was renewed after 30 days, then the renewal will be from the date of renewal and not from the date of expiry. Therefore, the insurance company has to pay compensation and recover the amount from the insured by initiating proceedings under the same award. The principle of the apex court is applicable in all force to the facts of this case. It is clear from Ex.R1 and the evidence of RW1 that as on the date of accident, 9.3.2000, the driving licence issued to the driver of the tempo of the offending vehicle had expired on 27.5.1998 and it was renewed on 18.4.2000 which is much beyond 30 days from the date of expiry.
5. Therefore, we hold that there was breach of conditions of the policy. However, in view of the decision of the apex court and the provisions of Section 149(2) a (ii), we hold that the insurance company shall deposit the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner in execution of the same award, without the need of filing a separate proceeding, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Chandra (supra).
6. In the result, we pass the following order:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 26.10.2002 passed in M.V.C. 1679/00 by the M.A.C.T., Bangalore City (S.C.C.H.14), is modified. It is ordered that the appellant-insurance company shall deposit the compensation awarded to the claimant with interest and costs as awarded. Thereafter, it shall have the right to recover the said amount from the owner, Chikkamuniyappa respondent No. 4 herein (respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal) in execution of the same award passed in M.V.C. 1679/00, without the necessity of initiating any further proceedings. The appellant shall deposit the amount awarded after deducting the deposit already made before the Tribunal, within six weeks from today.