Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Branch Manager, vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By Its Principal ... on 29 April, 2019
Author: J. Uma Devi
Bench: J. Uma Devi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL PWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LUMA DEV! WRIT PETITION NG: 23865 OF 2018 Setween: The Branch Manager, United India insurance Co. Lid., Branch Office, Owaraka Towers, ? Roads, Nadapa. . Petitioner AND 1. The State : y AP Rep. by ts Srincioal Secretary, Law Department, Secretarial, Velagapudh, Ai ravall ALR, 2. ocupall Rama Gangi Reddy, £ o/o. B.Rarn Reddy, age Major, VOLPE NO 1-132, Balaiahc Jaripaile Vilage, Gandipalli, Pendlimarry Mate aj, Kadapa Distr ICT 3. District Legal Services Authori ty, Permanent Lok Adalat, Rep. by its Secretary, Kadapa. (RS is impleaded as per court order dated: 26.07.2018 in LA.No.? of 204 18) Respondents Petition under Article 228 of the Constitution of India praying that in the croumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be Pleased ta issue writ, ortier or direction more pa ticularly one in the nature of Z writ Of mandamus. to declare ihe award of the Chairman. Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Unlity Services, Kadapa, DtL29.03. 2018 in PLAC No.64 2047, as being illegal, unjust, arbitrary. improper, bias, null and void, violation af principals of natural justice. AE e018 Petition under Section 154 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidave filed in support of the petition, the H ugh Court may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings including in EP No.194/48 on the file of Principal Wistrict Judge, Kacapa, filed against PLAC 61/47 en the file of Chairman, Penyenernt Lok Adahat for Putte Wolly Services, Kadapa, Orde = OL 20.03.2078, pending disposal of the above writ petiiory. in Rano Reddy, Aged about 40 years, sella ey salto 3 Vil age, Gandipalli, Pendtimarry Mandal, YSR (Kadapa ) District, .Petitioner/Respondent Na.2 AND 1. The Branet Manager, af India Insurance Co. Lid.. Branch Office. ca Towers, 7? Ros S, Aadapa. Writ Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. A.P. 3. The District Legal Services Authority, Permanent Lok Adalat, Rep. by its Secretary, Kadapa. Respondents Patition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased ta permit the 2nd respondent to withdraw the amount depasited by the Writ petitioner as per order dated 12-07-2018 in W.P. No. 23865 of 2018 to oredit of PLAC No. 61 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility services, Kadapa IA NO: 4 OF 2018 Between: Buchupalli Rama Gang} Reddy, W/o. B.Rami Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Rilo. HLNG.1-1424, Balaiahgaripalle Vilage, Gandipalli, Pendlimarry Mandal. ¥SR (Kadapa) District ..Petitioner/Respandent Na? AND 1. The Branch Manager, United tndia Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Dwaraka Towers, 7 Roads, Kadapa. . rt Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Law Departrnent, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. A.P. The District Legal Services Authority, Permanent Lok Adalat, Rep. by its secretary, KRadapa. Lo Respondents Petition under Section 1541 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court May be pleased to vacate the interim stay arder dt. 72-07-2018 in W.P No. 238605 af 2018. Counsel for the Petitioner: SR} SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: G.P, FOR LAW AND LEGISLATURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI And THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Writ Petition Ne. 23865 of 20718 ORDER
fPer Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Sestharama Murti] This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed oy the petitioner seeking verbatim the following relief/s:
"to issue writ, archer or chrection more particularly ane in the nature of writ of mandarnus, to declare the award of the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat for Pubtic Utilipy Services, kadapa, Df.29.03,2018 in PLAC .No.61/2017, as being jilegal, urqust, arbitrary, improper. bias, null and valid, violation af srincioles of natural justice, ame) pass such other order orf orders as this Honble Court deem fit and proper in fhe ci cumstances of the case.
~*~
2. We have heard the submissions of Sri ¥. Srinivasa Rao, learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner- United India Insurance Company, of the learned Government Pleader for Law & Legislature, appearing for the 1% respondent; and af Sri Shaik Mohammed {sraail, learned counsel appearing for the 2° respandent. The 3 respondent, the District Legal Services Authority, Kadapa, is unpleaded as party respandent as the Award impugned is one passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services. We have perused the mater iF al PFecore a.
3, The basic facts, in brief, are as follows:
The 29° respondent herein is the owner cum insured of the Larry bearing registration No.APO4 X 9136, which was insured with the writ petitioner insurance company, PW - the 2°¢ respondent engaged PW2 - D.V. Swamy Reddy as a driver of the said lorry. Qn 22.72.2016, when PW2 was driving the said torry, which was proceeding to Chennai, If met with an accident near Mangampeta of Railway Kodur. The said accident occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving of the said driver of the larry. On the 2° respondent 2 é VISRIM, 3 & JUD WLP no. 23865 of OLS inferming the writ petitioner insurance campany about the said accident, the rit petitioner insurance company arranged a spot survey by deputing an assessor, He inspected the vehicle and took photographs, The 2° respondent got the vehicle repaired in various work shops viz., G.M. Glass Works, Sr Vijaya Durga Motors, Star Battery works, 5ri Ganesh Automobiles, National lorry bady builders and Anwar Auto electrical works situated at Kacdapa and incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,07,746/-. Later the 2° respondent made a claim along with the original bills showing various expenditures incurred on repairs etcetera. The writ petitioner insurance company repudiated the claim. After exchange of natices, the 2" respondent filed PLAC.rio.61 of 2017 before the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Kadapa, ('PLA', for short) claiming the afore-stated amount with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the claim besides a compensation af Rs.1,00,000/- from the writ petitioner insurance campany. The writ petitioner insurance company resisted the said claim. On merits and by the award impugned in this writ petition, the PLA allowed the claim petition of the 24 respondent and directed the writ petitioner insurance company to pay Rs.2,07,746/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Agsrieved thereof, the insurance company filed the present writ petition.
A, We shall first deal with the facts and contentions. The same are as under:
The 2 respondent is the awner-cum-insured of the subject tarry. The said lorry was insured with the writ petitioner insurance company. {ts validity period is fram 00.00 hours of 05.08.2016 to midnight of 04.08.2017. The accident resulting in damage to the said lorry had occurred, on 22.12.2016, that is, within the above said period of insurance, The 26 respondent made a claim for the afore-stated subject amount under category 'own damages' by submitting the original bills. The writ petitioner insurance company, vide
3 MSRM, J & JDJ W.P.no.23865 af 2018 etter, dated 06.06.2017, repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the forry cid not hold a valid and effective driving licence as on the date and at the time of the accident. Thereafter, the 2 respandent got issued a legal notice, dated 20.06.2017, reiterating the claim and stating that the driver was holding a driving licence bearing no. 25621998, which authorized him to drive "ght motor vehicle (non transpert}) and motor cab transport vehicle with validity respectively till 14.07.2018 and till 02.12.2016 and that the second category/class of licence was renewed with effect fram 18.04.2017 till 17,04. 2020 and that the accident occurred during the interregnum period and, therefore, the writ petitioner insurance company is Uable to pay the campensation. in the reply notice, dated 27.06.2017, the writ petitioner Insurance company stated that the copy of the driving licence of the driver, which is submitted, was issued by Regional Transpart Authority, Kadapa, and that it reflects that he possessed licence ta drive LMV (non transport) and motor cab transport vehicle - transport and that the validity of the licence authorizing to drive motor cab transport vehicle -~ [transport] expired on 02.12.2016 and that, therefore, by the date and time of accident, that js, 22.12.2096, the driver of the lorry is not holding a licence authorizing him te drive the said categery/class of vehicle, that is, the subject lorry, and that the 2 respondent, who is the owner cum insured had permitted the said driver whe was nat having valid licence to drive the lorry and thereby violated the terms and conditions of insurance palicy as well as the provisions af the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder and hence, the fnsurance company is not Hable to pay the compensation for 'awn damages', that is, damages caused ta the vehicle owned by the insured and that, therefore, the claim is rightly and validly repudiated and that a communication is accordingly sent to the 2 respandent/owner-cum-insured vide letter dated 06.06.2017. As aveady nated, when the 2" respondent submitted a claim application before 4 MSRM, 1 & JUD W. Pong. 23865 of 2O18 the PLA, the Adalat, on merits, partly allowed the claim and directed the writ petitioner insurance campany to pay the amaunt of Rs.2,07,746/- with interest as stated supra. Thus, the PLA rejected the afore-stated contentions of the writ petitioner insurance comparly. Aggrieved thereof, the Insurance compaty filed this writ petition.
5. The principal issue that arises for determination is - 'whether the driver of the lorry held, as on the date and at the time of the accident, an effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the lorry?' 5.4 Dealing with this issue, it is to be noted that from the evidence brought on record the following aspects are noticeable: 'The driver held a licence issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa, which authorized him to drive LMV (non transport} and motor cab transport vehicle. The date of the first issue ig 15.07.1998. The licence was being renewed fram time to time. Nevertheless, his licence authorizing him to drive motor cab transpart vehicle expired on 02.12.2016. Therefore, by the date and at the time of accident, that is, 22.12.2016, the licence authorizing Him to drive the subject lorry had expired. It is pertinent to note that the accident occurred within 30 days from the date oan which the said category/class of licence had expired. However, the licence was renewed with effect from 18.04.2017 till 17.04.2020."
5.2 In this backdrop of facts, learned standing counsel for the writ petitioner Insurance Company cantended that the evidence brought on record makes it manifest that the driver-PW2 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence as on the date and at the time of accident and that the driver's cence was not renewed within thirty days period retrospectively from the date of expiry of licence and that the licence was renewed, on 18.04.2017, that is, long after the accident: and, hence, the driver was not authorized to drive the lorry on the date and at the time of accident and that the owner entrusted the lorry te 5 MSRM, J & JUBA WOR ri 23865 of 2018 the driver knowing fully well that the driver did nat hold a valid and effective driving licence and that, therefore, there is violation of te rms & conditions of pobey and the provisions of law and for the said reasons the writ petitioner insurance Campany is justified in repudiating the claim ane that it is entitled to contend that i is absolved from Uability to pay the compensation more particularly as the claim is a claim for own damages of the owner-cum-insured anc as the claim is not a third party claim. He finally submitted that the PLA erroneously fastened the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, 5.3 Per contra, the 2° respondent insured contends that as the accident eccurred within 30 days fram the date of expiry of the licence and as the licence was later renewed and that as the driver js competent to drive the subject lorry at the time of accident and that as his licence was renewed without the requirement of obtaining a fresh licence, the mere fact that the accident occurred after the licence had expired and before it is renewed is significant and that the said circumstances will not absolve the insurance company of its Gability to pay the cormpersation
6. iUis profitable to refer to the provisions of law and the relevant legal POsiticn, Driving Wcence is defined in Section 2(10) of the Act as under:
"driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter 1] authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a fearner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of ary specified class ar description.' The abave definition does nat make any reference to the period of its validity, & MSRM, 1 & W.Pone 23865 of 2018 JUD section 14, which deals with currency of Ucence to drive motor vehicles, reads as under: -
"14. Currency of licences to drive motar vehicles, ~ ) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of sig months from the date of issue of the licence.
(2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall, ~ {a} in the case of a cence to drive a transport vebicle, be effective for a period of three years:
Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a periad af one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes ane day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus: and
(b) In the case of any other licence,-
(i) 1f the person obtaining the licence, either originally or an renewal thereof, has not attained the age of f Fifly years on the date of issue ar, as the-case may be, renewal thereof, -
(A) be effective far a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewals o (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years, Whichever is earlier
(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i}, has attained the age of fifty years an the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, an payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of jive years frorn the date of such issue ar renewal"
Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub- section comlinue to be effective for a period of thirty days fram such expiry."
Section 15, which deals with renewal of licence, reads 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 fram the date of its expiry:
Provided that in ary case where the apolication 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:
Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence te drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the ave of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same ferm and in the same. manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section B, and the provisions of sub- sectian (4) of section & shall, so far as. may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence, (2) An application for the renewal of a driving Ucence shall be made in such form and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Gayvernment.
~~ VISRM, 1 & JUD.
W.P ne. 23865 af 2018 (3) Where an application for the senewal of a driving licence is made previous t0.
not im than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewa{ shail be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf.
i4) Where an applicatian for the renewal of a driving licence is made mare than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the few payable for such renewal shall be auch amount as may be prescribed by the Central Goverament:
Provided that the fee referred to in sub-sechon (3) may be accepted by the icensing authority in respect of an application for the cenewal of a driving licence made under this sub-section if tf 1s satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause fram applying within the time specified in such-sechion (Si oh Provider? further that if the applcatian 1s mace more than five years after the driving. tiomnce has reased th be effective, the Ucensing sutharity rnay refuse to renew the driving Heerice, urless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satistattinn the tesi of comperence to drive referred ta in sub-section i3) of sechion 9.
isi Where the application far renewal Has been rejected, the fee omid shall be vevunded bo such extent and in such manner as May be prescribed by the Centrat Government.
i6) Where the authority renewing the driving Heence is pot the authority which issued the driving Hoeence it shall intimate the fact of renewal to the authority whieh issued the driving Ucence. "
.
On expiry of the period specified in the provision of law, every driving hcence shall. notwithstanding its expiry continues to be effective for a period of thirty days fram such expiry. Further, the holder of the licence has an option, in terms of Section 15, to renew it even after the expiry of its effectiveness, that is, even after the period prescribed. insofar as the licence of the category oT the class in question, even after the expiry of the prescribed period of 30 days; the driver is entitled to get the Ucence renewed and he need not apply for a licance afresh. He needs to apply only for renewal. On such renewal, it regains its effectiveness. Sections 3, 14 and 15 taken together convey an idea that the Geencee contmues to be duly licenced, subject to his obligation to get the licence renewed, after the periad of its effectiveness. Be that as it may.
"y in The Griental insurance Co.Ltd., Lucknow v. Santosh Kumari and others! the Lucknow Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was confronted with squarely a similar question - "Whether the insurance Company GY MISES 8 MSRM, 1 & fu} WP no 23865 of 2018 would be Hable to pay the insured/awarded amount, in case the accident occurs within thirty days of the expiry of the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle?" From the facts of the cited case, it is evident that driving licence of the driver expired, on 25.12.2006, and that the accident occurred 31x days thereafter, on 31.12.2006, and that the driving cence was renewed oan 02.04.2007, i.e., after a little more than three months. it was held in the said decision as follows: "Proviso to section 14 of the Act that has been emphasized by us clarifies that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days fram such expiry." "The accident occurred within thirty days of expiry of licence, therefore, under the proviso to section 14 of the Act, it remained effective,"
Finally it was held that the appellant Insurer would be liable to pay to the claimants, the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
&. On the above analysis we hold that the driver of the lorry held, as on the date and at the time of the accident, an effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the subject lorry. Dealing further with the issue of liability of the insurer, be it re-noted that the said lorry was insured with the writ petitioner insurance company and that the validity period of the policy of insurance is frarn 00.00 haurs of 05.08.2016 to midnight of 04.08.2017 and that the accident resulting in damage to the said larry had occurred, on 22.12.2016, that is, within the above said period of insurance. The copy of the policy, on a plain perusal reflects that premium was also paid to cover the risk of 'own damages', Therefore, we hald that the writ petitioner Insurance Company is Gable to pay the compensation that may be awarded ta the 2% respondent owner-curm-
insured. Be that as it may.
9. Apart from advancing the contention that there is no ability to pay any campensation, with which we did not agree, in the facts and circumstances af the case, the learned Standing counsel for the writ petitioner insurance i. MSRM, J & JUD) W.Punia. 23865 of 2018 Company further submitted that since the claim in the instant case is not a third party claim and as the instant claim is one for own damages, and as the dover chd not held a valid and effective licence autharizing him to drive the iorry at the time af the accident, the question of giving a direction to the insurer to indemnify, and, if so advised, recover the sarne from the insured does not arise as the decision in National insurance Ca. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh PJ P2604 SCC (Cri) 733] has no application to cases other than third-party risks. [In support this contention, he placed reliance on the decision in National insurance Ca. Lid. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700]. However, this contention is of no avail to the writ petitioner Insurance Company, as the case on Rand is not one wherein a direction to pay and recover is to be given and as, having regard ta the facts and principles of law applicable, we have held supra that absolute Hability can be fastened on the insurer.
1G. Though a feeble contention that when the claim was disputed by the answering respondent, the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA} has ne jurisdiction to go inte the merits of the claim and grant any relief to the claimant was also raised by the Insurance Company before the PLA, the said contention is not canvassed before this Court in view of the settled legal position that the PLA is competent and is having jurisdiction to go into the merits of the matter and resolve the disputed claims and pass an award on merits of the matter.
fi. Coaming finally to the quanturn of compensation awarded, it is to be noted that the learned standing counsel for the writ petitioner insurance Company alternatively contended that the assessor/surveyor, who inspected the vehicle, estimated the cost of repairs at Rs.1,07,00G/- and hence, the claim shauld have been allowed for the said sum and not for any amount axceeding the said amount. However, the PLA, having adverted to the documents/ Bilis for repairs marked, noted that the 2 respondent-claimant oroved the claim to the extent of Rs.2,07,746/- and that exhibit B4é reflects LO MSRM, J & JUD J WP no.23865 of 2018 that the total value of the spare parts was Rs.4,12,100/- and that on verification of the documents it is satisfied that the claimant proved that the claimant incurred the above expenditure of Rs.2,07,746/- on repairs of the damaged vehicle and hence, the actual expenditure incurred can be awarded to the claimant/the 2° respondent. In the light of the fact that the quantum of campensation was determined and awarded after careful scrutiny of the evidence by the PLA, we do not find any merit. in the contention of the writ petitioner Insurance Company.
12. For alf the reasons assigned and our findings supra, we hold that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as fo casts.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand _ closed, Sd/- K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR HTRUE COPY [One SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'bie Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon'bie Ms. Justice J.Uma Devi (For Her Lordships Kind Perusal) To,
1. The Principal District Judge, Kadapa.
é. One CC to Sr Srinivasa Rao Vutla, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CCs ta G.P. for Law and Legislature, High Court of Andhra Pradesh fOUTI
4. Qne CC to Sri Shaik Mohammed isrnail, Advocate (OPUC) &. OLR. Copies.
8, The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice anc Company Affairs, New Delhi.
¢. The Secretary, Advocates' Association Library, High Court Buildings. Amaravati & Two CD Copies.
PSB HIGH COURT DATED: 29/04/2019 ORDER WP.No.23865 of 2018 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS sxe