Delhi District Court
Meena & Ors. vs . Jiya Lal & Ors. on 22 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF DR. HARDEEP KAUR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT(SE), SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACT No. 3254/16
FIR No. 09/16
PS: New Friends Colony
Meena & Ors. Vs. Jiya Lal & Ors.
CNR no. DLSE010004952016
1. Meena (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Munesh
2. Munesh (Father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Somi
3. Priya (Sister of deceased)
D/o Sh. Munesh
All R/o : R/o B253, Subhash Camp,
Dakshinpuri Extension,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
New Delhi
... Claimants
VERSUS
1. Jiya Lal
S/o Sh. Asha Ram
R/o Village Bimaval, PS : Alapur
Distt. Amebdkar Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh
.....(R1/Driver)
2. Yoginder
S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh
R/o D156, Indra Park,
Near Sai Baba Mandir,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
MACT No. 3254/16 Meena & Ors. Vs. Jiya Lal & Ors. Page No.1/8
...(R2/Owner)
3. M/s New India Insurance company Ltd.,
New India Assurance Bldg., 87,
M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001
.....Insurance Company/R3
.....Respondents
Date of accident : 05.01.2016
Date of filing of DAR : 08.03.2016
Date of Decision : 22.10.2020
JUDGMENT
1. DAR where no serious question of law or facts are involved can be disposed of by short orders. Negligence on the part of respondent no.1 is to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probability, quantum of compensation is to be determined and in case the insurance company has raised any defence the liability to pay compensation is to be fixed.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 25.04.2017 the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal passed award in Suit no. 3254/16 which was challenged by driver and owner of the offending vehicle against recovery rights to Insurance Company. Vide order dated 07.05.2019, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that the appellants are aggrieved by the grant of rights of recovery to the Insurance Company against them. The said rights were granted because the owner and driver were unable to produce the requisite Training Certificate/Special License for driving the insured oil tanker, which met with the accident. Further observed that it is the appellants case that the driver had the requisite Training Certificate/Special License, but due to inadvertence and perhaps inadequate professional legal assistance, he was unable to produce the said document. The Hon'ble High Court remanded MACT No. 3254/16 Meena & Ors. Vs. Jiya Lal & Ors. Page No.2/8 back the case to this Tribunal for adducing evidence with respect to the appellants (Respondents no.1 & 2 herein) claim of having the requisites skills to drive the insured oil tanker.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.01.2016 at about 06.20 PM, the deceased was driving his scooty bearing registration no. DL 3SCT 6616, When he reached on Mathura CRRI Red Light, one Oil Tanker bearing registration no. DL 1GB 6190 came in rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased. Due to which he fell down and received serious injuries. Thereafter, he was removed to Apollo Hospital where during treatment, he died on 06.01.2016.
4. After registering FIR no. 09/16, PS New Friends Colony, IO filed charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC against Respondent no.1. DAR was also filed by the investigating officer.
5. Respondent no.1 and 2 filed their common written statement stating therein that the accident did not take place due to any fault on the part of the answering respondents.
6. The insurance company also filed its reply denying any liability to pay the compensation for the reason that the driver was not having hazardous goods carrying vehicle driving license at the time of accident. However, it is admitted that offending vehicle bearing no. 32350331150200001491 valid from 15.09.2015 to 14.09.2016.
7. From pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 30.04.2016 by the Predecessor of this Tribunal:
MACT No. 3254/16 Meena & Ors. Vs. Jiya Lal & Ors. Page No.3/81. Whether the injured Amit Mehra S/o Sh. Munesh suffered fatal injuries in an accident which took place on 05.01.2016 due to rash and negligent driving by vehicle bearing registration no. DL 1GB 6190 by respondent no.1/Jia Lal? OPP
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom ?
3. Relief.
8. Evidence was led on behalf of claimants and insurance company. On the basis of evidence, vide order dated 25.04.2017, Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs.17,55,000/ and given recovery rights to the Insurance Company against driver and owner. Record shows that Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount with the bank.
9. Insurance Company led its evidence before the remand back of this case and examined its Administrative Officer Sh. Vikash Kumar as R3W1 who deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as there was no endorsement on the driving license to drive the hazardous goods vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. He proved copy of policy as Ex.R3W1/1, Copy of Driving License of the driver of the offending vehicle as Ex.R3W1/2, the Driving License Report was proved as R3W1/3 and R3W1/4. The seizure memo of the oil tanker was proved as Ex.R3W1/5.
Legal Notice under Order 12 Rule 8 of CPC given to the Driver and owner to produce valid Driving License was proved as Ex.R3W1/6 and the postal receipts as per which the notice was sent were proved as Ex.R3W1/78. Reply sent by the counsel for Driver and owner of the vehicle was proved as MACT No. 3254/16 Meena & Ors. Vs. Jiya Lal & Ors. Page No.4/8 Ex.R3W1/9.
10. After remand back of the case, Respondent no.1 examined Sh. Umesh Yadav, Instructor, Om Sai Motor Driving Training School, Noida as a R1W1. He relied upon his authority letter as Ex.R1W1/1 and Training Certificate for Hazardous Goods Vehicle issued to driver/R1 by his school as Ex.R1W1/2.
11. During cross examination, witness deposed that he is working with Om Sai Motor Driving Training School, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh for the last 3 years. He was not working at Om Sai Motor Driving Training School at the time of issuance of certificate Ex.R1W1/2.
12. Respondent no.1 also examined Sh. Ankit Tyagi S/o Sh. Devender Tyagi, Instructor, Om Sai Motor Driving Training School as R1W2. Termination Letter dated 15.07.2020 of Umesh Yadav is exhibited as Ex.R1W2/1). His authority letter is exhibited as Ex.R1W2/2. He relied upon Training Attendance Sheet of driver as Ex.R1W2/3, fees slips as Ex.R1W2/4, and Training Certificate of driver Jiya Lal as Ex.R1W2/5 (already exhibited as Ex.R1W1/2).
13. During cross examination, R1W2 deposed that he is Training Instructor in Om Sai Driving Training School. He has no knowledge whether Umesh Yadav has resigned himself or he was terminated by the employer. He was working as Training Instructor since last 7 years. He gives training to a fresher for 3 days and for renewal for one day. He did not give training to Jiya Lal.
14. No other witness was examined by the Respondent no.1 & 2.
15. No evidence led by Insurance Company after remand back of the case.
MACT No. 3254/16 Meena & Ors. Vs. Jiya Lal & Ors. Page No.5/816. Arguments were addressed by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as Counsel for R1 & 2.. Written Submissions filed on behalf of insurance company.
17. Counsel for Respondent no. 1 and 2 relied upon judgment tilted as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sonia Mittal MAC 1043/2016 decided on 12.10.2017 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
18. Insurance Company relied upon judgment titled as United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Saminuddin & Ors. MAC App. 777/2016, CM Appl. 35523/2016 & CM Appl. 33917 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
19. Respondent no. 1/driver of offending vehicle got examined Sh. Umesh Yadav and Sh. Ankit Tyagi, Instructors Om Sai Motor Training School, Noida, Uttar Pradesh as R1W1 and R1W2 respectively in his defence. They proved training certificate issued to Respondent no.1/Jiya Lal from Om Sai Motor Training School, Noida, Uttar Pradesh for driving vehicles carrying hazardous goods exhibited as Ex.R1W1/2. Perusal of the certificate Ex.R1W1/2 reveals that training programme was conducted on 19.10.2015 to 21.10.2015 which was valid upto 20.10.2016. From the evidence adduced, it emerges that offending vehicle came under the category of 'transport vehicle' meant to carry dangerous or hazardous goods. The driver was having a valid DL for driving heavy transport vehicle but it is evident that there was no endorsement on the said DL as required under proviso of Section 14 (2) (a) MV Act.
20. This Tribunal also relied upon judgment titled as United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Saminuddin & Ors. MAC App. 777/2016, CM Appl.
MACT No. 3254/16 Meena & Ors. Vs. Jiya Lal & Ors. Page No.6/835523/2016 & CM Appl. 33917/2018 decided on 23.09.2019 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that:
"5. What emanates from the above is that the owner was able to establish that the driver possessed the requisite driving skills as certified by the aforementioned Governmentlicenced Motor Driving Training School. However, it is nobody's case that mere possession of the certificate will necessarily result in the Transport Authority certifying and/or licencing the person as having the requisite skills to drive a hazardousgoods carrying vehicle. As the name itself suggests, a motor driving training school is a school/institute which trains candidates to drive motor vehicles. It purports to impart a trainee the requisite skills as well as teach them the basic road signs and rules related to driving of motor vehicles on roads.
6. Nevertheless, at the end of any such training, whenever a candidate appears before the Transport Authority, his motor driving skills and knowledge of the applicable rules are tested by the Authority. It is only when the candidate passes the tests that he is issued a driving licence. Mere possession of a certificate from a training school cannot substitute the statutory requirement of a Driving Licence to be issued by the relevant authority. For driving of hazardousgoods carrying vehicles, a further endorsement is required on the Driving Licence.
7.In the present case, for indemnification against insurance claims under the said policy, the insurer had proceeded in good faith, that the driver of the hazardousgoods carrying motor vehicle would have been duly licenced by the relevant Licencing Authority, to drive the said vehicle. But on the driving licence, there was no such endorsement. In other words, the driver had neither been tested nor approved by the Licencing Authority to drive the hazardousgoods carrying vehicle. There is a breach of policy condition, MACT No. 3254/16 Meena & Ors. Vs. Jiya Lal & Ors. Page No.7/8 therefore, the owner of the vehicle would be liable to indemnify the loss."
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of aforesaid judgment, this is the considered view of this Tribunal that a driving license without endorsement to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods is not a valid license for the purpose of a vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. Therefore, Insurance Company is entitled for recovery rights against driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
Digitally
22. The case is disposedoff in the above terms. signed by DR DR HARDEEP HARDEEP KAUR
23. File be consigned to record room. KAUR Date:
2020.10.23 17:04:15 +0530 Typed to the dictation directly, corrected and pronounced in open Court on 22.10.2020 (DR. HARDEEP KAUR) POMACT (SouthEast) Saket Court/ New Delhi MACT No. 3254/16 Meena & Ors. Vs. Jiya Lal & Ors. Page No.8/8