Punjab-Haryana High Court
New India Assurance Company Limited vs Mahavir Parshad Sharma And Others on 14 February, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO-2090-2010 (O&M) and [1]
XOBJ-79-CII-2011
::::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2090-2010 (O&M) and
XOBJ-79-CII-2011
Date of decision:14.02.2012
New India Assurance Company Limited ...Appellant
Versus
Mahavir Parshad Sharma and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. B.S.Mittal, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The question involved in this appeal is as to "whether a driving licence which is not renewed within one month of its expiry would still relate to its date of renewal"?
This order shall dispose of FAO-2090-2010 filed by the Assurance Company against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa [for short "learned Tribunal"] dated 25.01.2010 by which claimants have been awarded a sum of `5,42,000/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. The liability to pay the amount of awarded compensation was imposed upon respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally and the claim petition against respondent No.4 (Driver) was dismissed.
This order shall also dispose of the Cross Objection No.79-CII of 2011 which has been filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil FAO-2090-2010 (O&M) and [2] XOBJ-79-CII-2011 ::::::
Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"] by the claimants for further enhancement of compensation on account of death of Sanwar Mal on 22.04.2007.
Insofar as the appeal by the Assurance Company is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal has already been paid to the claimants. He has submitted that the assurance company has no grievance against the claimants in the present appeal as they are challenging the order of the Tribunal on the issue of imposition of liability to make the payment of compensation. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a patent error of law in absolving the Driver of the offending vehicle despite the fact that he was not possessing a valid driving licence. He has referred to the finding of the learned Tribunal recorded with regard to the validity of driving licence, which reads as under:
"17. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that on the date of accident licence of respondent No.1 had expired and he got the said licence renewed lateron. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that earlier fake licence was produced by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was having a driving licence which eventually expired and therefore, he got the said licence renewed. Renewal will take effect from the date of expiry of the licence and, therefore, it cannot be said that merely by expiry of his licence, respondent No.1 had forgotten to drive his vehicle. Therefore, the plea of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 is turned down and it is held that respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify the insured. Nothing has been brought upon record by the petitioners for holding that respondent No.4 was jointly responsible for causing the accident and for paying compensation."
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per FAO-2090-2010 (O&M) and [3] XOBJ-79-CII-2011 ::::::
document Ex.RA, the driving licence was valid from 30.08.2003 to 29.08.2006 which was renewed on 29.12.2008 and had the validity upto 28.12.2011, whereas the accident had taken place on 22.04.2007. It is submitted that since the licence was not got renewed by the Driver/respondent No.4 within one month of its expiry on 28.08.2006, therefore, the renewal would take effect from the date it was renewed and not from the date when the licence had expired. In this regard, he has referred to the first proviso to Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short "the Act"] and also a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Chandra and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And others, (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 650.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant in FAO-2090-2010 and have perused the record.
First proviso to Section 15 of the Act is as under:
"15. Renewal of driving licences. -- (1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry:
Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal:
According to the aforesaid provision, the original licence would remain valid for a period of 30 days from the date of its expiry and if an application is filed for its renewal within that period, it will relate back to the date when the licence had expired but if the application is filed after the expiry of 30 days, then it would be renewed from the date of its renewal. In case of Ishwar Chandra and others' (supra), the licence of the driver had expired on 28.07.1994. The accident had taken place on 28.04.1995 but no application was filed for its renewal within 30 days and as such, on the date of accident, the driver was not held to have a valid driving licence and hence, the insurer was not held liable to indemnify the appellants, the owners of the vehicle.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am in full agreement FAO-2090-2010 (O&M) and [4] XOBJ-79-CII-2011 ::::::
with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant and as such, FAO-2090-2010 is hereby allowed and the appellant is hereby accorded the right of recovery of the amount of compensation, which has been paid to the claimants, from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
As regards the Cross Objections No.79-CII of 2011, learned counsel for the cross-objector could hardly make out any ground for enhancement of compensation which, in my view, has already been suitably granted to the claimants. Hence, finding no merit in the Cross Objection, the same is hereby dismissed.
February 14, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE