Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Birender @ Gajender And Others on 7 July, 2011
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No.1003 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1003 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision:7.7.2011
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Birender @ Gajender and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Paul S.Saini, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.Mukesh Yadav, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr.N.S.Sekhawat, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
-.-
JITENDRA CHUAHAN, J.
CM No.4357 to 4359 of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed. The delay of 43 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main case The solitary question involved in the present appeal No.1003 of 2009 and FAO No.692 of 2010 is as to who will satisfy the award dated 30.09.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short `the Tribunal').
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
From the perusal of the case file, it is established that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent FAO No.1003 of 2009 2 No.2, (driver of the offending vehicle). It is also not disputed that the offending vehicle was insured. The learned Tribunal held that as the vehicle was insured and the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the awarded amount to the claimants.
The Insurance Company took the stand that as per the statement of Mahavir Singh, Clerk, DTO, Rewari (RW1), the driving licence issued to respondent No.2 was valid from 8.1.2001 to 7.1.2004. It further emerges that the driving licence,(mark R-1), which was in possession of respondent No.2 at the time of alleged accident, was renewed on 6.3.2007 and was valid upto 5.1.2010. The accident took place on 10.11.2006. In the circumstance, it is manifestly clear that the driving licence was not in force during the period from 7.1.04 to 06.03.07.
According to Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a driving licence would be renewed from the date of its expiry, in case an application for renewal is made within 30 days from the date of expiry of the validity period of a driving licence. As per proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 15 of the Act, in case, an application for renewal of a driving licence is made after more than 30 days of expiry of the validity period, the driving licence in such an eventuality would be deemed to be renewed from the date of its actual renewal. In the instant case, the driving licence was renewed much after the expiry of 30 days from the validity of the driving licence. In the fact situation, the validity of the driving licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle commenced from 6.3.2007. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the driving licence was not in force during the period from 7.1.04 to 06.03.07.
FAO No.1003 of 2009 3
In the circumstance, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal wrongly held the Insurance Company-appellant liable to pay the awarded amount, when it was established that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid licence on the date of the accident.
Although, no other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the parties, yet I have rescanned the entire case file minutely and find that the award of the learned Tribunal is just, appropriate and reasonable. Therefore, no interference is called for.
In view of above, the present appeal No.1003 of 2009 and FAO No.692 of 2010 are allowed and the impugned award dated 30.9.2008 is modified to the extent that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, driver and owner, respectively, shall be liable to pay the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal jointly and severely. The appellant-Insurance Company is absolved of the responsibility to satisfy the award.
7.7.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No