Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalyan Singh And Anr. vs Sadarani And Anr. on 23 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2001ACJ1758
JUDGMENT S.C. Pandey, J.
1. The appellants have filed this appeal against the award dated 6.9.1996, passed by IV Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sagar, in M.V. Case No. 81 of 1991, awarding a claim of Rs. 74,000 and interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application, in favour of the respondent-claimant Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. In this appeal none appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is not necessary for them to be represented for the purpose of final disposal of this appeal as they are not affected by allowing this appeal, filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle involved, requiring this court to modify the impugned award saying that the respondent No. 4, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. too shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of the impugned award.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the respondent No. 4 from the liability to pay compensation jointly and severally along with the appellants on the ground that on the date of accident the licence of appellant No. 2, Gouri Shanker, the driver was not renewed.
4. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 11.6.1991. The appellant No. 2, Gouri Shanker had been the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and had held a valid and effective licence for almost eight years. However, this licence was not renewed between the period of 23.7.1990 and 29.7.1991. It was renewed on 29.7,1991. The accident occurred on 11.6.1991. For this reason, the Claims Tribunal has wrongly held that the respondent No. 4 was not liable. In this connection reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sher Ali 2000 ACJ 507 (MP). In this case, R.D. Vyas, J. had held that even though the driver had not renewed the licence at the time of accident, the subsequent renewal would show that the vehicle was not driven by any incompetent person and, therefore, his Lordship refused to interfere with the order of the Tribunal granting right of compensation against the insurance company along with the owner and driver of the vehicle.
5. The counter argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 is that the appellant No. 2 was not holding a valid licence. His licence was not renewed on the date of accident and, therefore, there was violation of terms of policy.
6. It is clear from the evidence on record in shape of Exh. D-2 on record that the appellant No. 2 was holding a valid licence from 23.7.1987 to 22.7.1990 and, thereafter, the licence was renewed as per the document Exh. D-4, for the period 29.7.1991 up to 28.7.1994. Therefore, initially, the appellant No. 2 was holding an effective licence for driving the concerned tractor which caused the accident. It is true that on the date of accident, the licence was not renewed. It was renewed subsequently as already stated. In the light of above facts, it is necessary to construe the condition on which the insurance company would be liable. The concerned condition has been mentioned in the insurance policy, Exh. D-l, as follows:
Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive.-Any of the following:
(a) The insured
(b) Any other person who is driving on the insured's order or with his permission. Provided that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive the category of motor vehicle insured hereunder.
It is clear from the proviso to the above condition (b) that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive the category of motor vehicle insured in the policy. This means that even if a person is holding licence in the past that would also be covered by the proviso aforesaid. The only condition is that the person holding licence should not have been disqualified from holding an effective licence in the meanwhile. It is clear that the appellant No. 2 was earlier holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive a tractor insured. Subsequently, this licence was renewed showing that the appellant No. 2 was not disqualified from holding the licence. The only lacuna was that the licence was left unrenewed for some time but this would not be taken into consideration in exonerating the insurance company because the insurance company itself says that it will be liable if the person concerned had held the licence.
7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award dated 6.9.1996 is hereby modified saying that the respondent No. 4, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall also be liable to pay Rs. 74,000 (Rupees seventy-four thousand), awarded by the Claims Tribunal by the impugned order, to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, jointly and severally together with the appellants. In case, the amount of interim award has been paid by the respondent No. 4 then, in that event, that amount shall be excluded from the payment of balance of amount to be paid by the respondent No. 4. The interest on the amount of award of Rs. 74,000 (Rupees seventy-four thousand) would be chargeable at the rate of 12 per cent per annum subject to the condition that the Claims Tribunal shall adjust the amount of interest paid to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the interim award, if any. It is also directed that out of the amount of the award, Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) shall be deposited in the name of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the fixed deposit scheme with a nationalized bank for a period of five years and the rest of the amount shall be paid to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The condition No. 5, given in the impugned award is hereby set aside saying that the respondent No. 4 is liable to pay the amount of interim compensation too and it shall not be entitled to any refund. It is further directed that in case, the respondent No. 4 deposits the entire amount of compensation which is recoverable from it, any additional amount deposited by the appellants shall be refunded to them.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby allowed in view of the modification in the impugned award to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.