Karnataka High Court
Prakash vs Hanumanthraya And Others on 13 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000ACJ604, ILR1999KAR1671, 1999(3)KARLJ221, 1999 A I H C 2458, (1999) 3 KANT LJ 221, (1999) 2 ACC 64, (2000) 1 ACJ 604, (1999) 3 TAC 857
Author: B.S. Sreenivasa Rao
Bench: B.S. Sreenivasa Rao
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/owner of the goods vehicle which involved in the accident against the judgment and award dated 19-1-1996 passed in Motor Vehicles Case 142 of 1992 by the 1st Additional District Judge and Member, MACT, Gulbarga awarding compensation of Rs. 63,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation to the father of the deceased/dependent in motor vehicle accident.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/owner of the vehicle and the learned Counsel for respondent 2-Insurance Company.
3. The main ground urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the liability should have also been fastened against the Insurance Company-respondent 2 as the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that from the copy of the driving licence Ex. R. 3 issued to respondent 1, it is clear that the driver was authorised to drive the light motor vehicle and when on the date of the accident the vehicle was covered with the insurance policy, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company should have also been fastened with the liability.
4. During the course of the order, the Tribunal has observed regarding the liability to the compensation it is in the evidence of R.W. 1 the official of the Insurance Company has stated that the driver was holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicles, the vehicle KA-33/272 as per Ex. R. 2 is a heavy motor vehicle, the driver was not competent to drive the vehicle in terms of the insurance policy. Hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the liability has not been fastened on the Insurance Company.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has strongly urged that Ex. R. 1 copy of the insurance policy which states that the vehicle No. KA-33/272 is a goods carrying vehicle and the persons or classes of persons are entitled to drive or any person including insured provided that the person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's licence may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of goods at the time of the accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
6. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in Sohanlal Passi v P. Sesh Reddy and Others, wherein it has been held that bus driver allowed the conductor/cleaner who was not duly licensed person to drive the bus and he caused the accident -- contention that the accident occurred when an unlicensed person was driving the vehicle, there has been breach of a specific condition in the policy and the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner. Insured had engaged a licensed driver and had placed the vehicle in his charge and there was no allegation that the insured was guilty of violating the condition that the vehicle shall not be driven by a person not duly licensed -- Whether the insured had wilfully violated the condition of the policy and the Insurance Company is exonerated from liability. Held -- No.
7. The facts of this case can be distinguished from the facts of the present case. The owner engaged a duly licensed person as driver and placed the bus in his charge -- Driver allowed the conductor/cleaner who was not duly licensed to drive the vehicle and he caused the accident resulting in the death of a scooterist. Hence, the Insurance Company was made liable to indemnify the owner who had insured the bus with the Insurance Company and there was no violation of the policy by the owner of the vehicle.
8. In the present case on hand, the owner of the vehicle and the driver filed written objections resisting the claim and also the Insurance Company has filed the objections to the effect that the vehicle No. KA-33/272 was insured with the Insurance Company during the period of the accident, but the Insurance Company has denied the liability in view of the breach of condition in the policy viz., the persons or classes of persons entitled to drive as the vehicle at the material time was given by a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle only whereas the vehicle involved is a light goods vehicle. The person driving the vehicle ought to have possessed a licence to drive light goods vehicle. Hence the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that as per the conditions of the policy the driver who was driving the vehicle was not having effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the Insurance Company is not liable. In order to establish this contention, the Insurance Company examined R.W. 1- Assistant Divisional Manager, United Insurance Company who has clearly stated in the evidence that Ex.R3 driving licence issued to the driver from the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Yadgir and he has also stated that the driver was having light motor vehicle (non-transport) driving licence. He was not authorised to drive light motor vehicle (transport). As the driver did not hold valid driving licence at the time of accident, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner.
9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant/owner that to invoke the aid, the proviso that even the persons holding learner's licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident, if satisfied, the Insurance Company should be made liable, does not come into play in view of the terms and conditions of the policy that the driver was driving the vehicle and it was a goods vehicle for which the licence was effective at the time of the accident. It is to be noted that the driver is not examined in the case. It is also not the contention taken in the objection filed by the driver and the owner. At the time of the accident, the driver had valid driving licence and the vehicle was insured and hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. No such statement has been made in the objections filed by the owner before the Tribunal. The main question will be whether in view of the clause in the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle as the driver was not having effective driving licence at the time of causing the accident.
10. The learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent has relied on the decision in United India Insurance Company Limited v K. Subramaniam and Others, wherein it has been held that the defence available to Insurance Company, accident by a tempo, a three-wheeler goods vehicle, driven by a driver who was holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle -- Driver's licence was endorsed after the date of accident authorising him to drive a transport vehicle as paid employee -- Whether the driver had a valid licence on the date of accident to drive the tempo and the Insurance Company liable -- Held in the negative. During the course of the judgment it has been observed that Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act states that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to himself authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a motor vehicle as a paid employee or shall so drive a transport vehicle, unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. In the present case on hand, the driving licence has been produced in the case which has been marked as Ex. R. 3. It has been specifically mentioned that the driver was authorised to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport) and Ex. R. 2 is the extract from the RTO office which shows that the class of vehicle as 'goods vehicle'. That means to say, as per the driving licence produced and relied as per Ex. R. 3 it is seen, the driver was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle particularly a light motor vehicle which is a transport vehicle at the time of the accident.
11. The learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent has contended that as per Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to himself authorising him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a vehicle as a paid employee or shall so drive a transport vehicle, unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. In the present case on hand, as per Section 3, it is made clear, on the date of the accident, the driver had no effective driving licence to drive the vehicle which made that accident. He was permitted to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport) whereas the vehicle is a goods vehicle and which has been insured as per Ex. R. 1-the insurance policy with the Insurance Company. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has also relied on the decision in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v Ashok, wherein it has been held that the complainant insured his vehicle with the Insurance Company -- Met with an accident -- Claim lodged -- Claim rejected as the driver was not having valid licence -- State Commission allowed the complaint -- Hence appeal -- Whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant. It has been held in the negative. In the present case on hand, the specific contention of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is that the driver was not having an effective valid driving licence at the time of causing the accident and hence in view of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable and which has been proved by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has also upheld the contention of the Insurance Company and has fastened the liability only on the owner of the vehicle.
12. In view of my above discussion, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant on the liability should have been fastened against the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. It is not much contended about the amount of compensation awarded. The only ground which has been seriously urged is that the liability should have been fastened against the Insurance Company which has been negatived by the Tribunal basing its conclusion on the terms and conditions of the policy and also the driving licence issued to the driver which clearly shows that the driver had no effective valid driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle (non-transport).
13. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.