Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chatra And Anr. vs Imrat Lal And Ors. on 14 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1998ACJ314
JUDGMENT Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Appeal No. 270 of 1992, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chatra. The challenge in this appeal is to the award passed by the Claims Tribunal constituted under Motor Vehicles Act, thereby the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants, has been dismissed.
2. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. had deposited the amount of Rs. 15,000/- as interim award which was paid to claimants by the Tribunal. In final award, no order in that regard was passed. Therefore in Appeal No. 264 of 1992, the appellant company has prayed for the refund of the amount.
3. Before the Tribunal the claim petition was filed by appellants under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming Rs. 5,43,000/- as compensation on the death of the claimants' son Mangilal. It is disputed that the tractor bearing registration No. MBH 8486 was driven by the respondent No. 1, at the relevant time and was insured with the respondent No. 3.
4. The claim petition was preferred on the allegations that on 2.2.1987 the tractor bearing No. MBH 8486 owned by the original respondent No. 2 Mathuralal, was driven by his son respondent No. 1, Imrat Lal rashly and negligently, which resulted in the death of Mangilal. The deceased was allegedly called by respondent No. 1 was carried in the tractor. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor the said Mangilal fell on the ground from the tractor and was crushed under its rear wheel. It resulted in his instantaneous death on the spot. After the accident the body of deceased Mangilal was placed in the trolley attached to the said tractor by the village people, namely, Pappu, Toran, Laxminarain and Daulatram. Imrat Lal, the respondent No. 1 was stated to have brought the tractor and trolley to his khalihan and had then fled away.
5. The deceased was stated to be the youngest son of the claimants. He was stated to be an intelligent student. He also used to work with his father as a labourer and used to earn Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per month. The claimants, under the different heads had claimed the compensation in the amount of Rs. 5,43,000/-.
6. The claim petition was later amended impleading Harnarain, son of Mathuralal, as respondent No. 2 in place of Mathuralal, son of Ghasiram, since he was found to be the owner of the tractor. Before the learned Tribunal, claimant Chatra examined himself as PW 1, Prabhu as PW 2, Dr. Anil Vijayvargiya as PW 3, Ashok Tiwari, S.O. Incharge as PW 4 and Ramcharan as PW 5. The respondent No. 1 had also examined himself as NA 1 and one Laxminarain as NA 2. Harnarain, respondent No. 2 had also examined himself.
7. The learned Tribunal although found that at the relevant time the tractor was being driven by respondent No. 1 which was owned by respondent No. 2 and the deceased had died due to injuries caused by the tractor, yet found that respondent No. 1 was not rash and negligent in driving the tractor. The learned Tribunal also found that the claimants had suffered the loss of Rs. 43,200/- due to the death of their son Mangilal but it refused to award any compensation, holding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and the accident was the result of negligent act of the deceased himself.
8. The learned Tribunal under the impugned award itself found that deceased Mangilal was an occupant of the trolley attached to the tractor. It was also found that the tractor was driven by Imrat Lal, respondent No. 1. With these findings the learned Tribunal lost sight of the principle that at times the accident itself speaks of negligence of the driver, and particularly when the driver possessed no licence. The deceased was found to be crushed under the tractor wheel.
9. In the instant case, it was admitted in para 6 of statement by respondent No. 1, i.e., the driver of the tractor and by respondent No. 2, i.e., the owner of the tractor, in para 2 of his statement, that respondent No. 1 had no driving licence. As such he was not authorised by law to bring the vehicle on road.
10. Though the Tribunal has held that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, but the circumstances under which the accident took place as also the fact that the driver had no driving licence, will clearly attract the principle of res ipsa loquitur. When a vehicle is driven by an unlicensed person, in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the negligence of the person driving the vehicle would also be self proving and no further evidence of negligence may be required.
11. The negligence means the breach of the provisions of law as also the breach of the duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The negligence or the rashness would depend upon the facts of each case.
12. Further in the instant case respondents' own witness, Laxminarain, had stated to police during investigation of offence registered by police against respondent No. 1 that the deceased had died due to the injuries on his head caused by the tractor wheel, as a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. The police statement was proved by claimants/ appellants from the record of criminal case of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Tribunal therefore erred in holding that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No. 1 and that the deceased had died due to his own negligent act. Such finding has to be interfered with. It is, therefore, set aside.
13. The learned Tribunal had itself assessed the loss to the claimants at Rs. 43,200/- due to the death of their son Mangilal. The Tribunal found the age of the deceased to be around 20 years and the dependency of claimants (aged around 50 years), to be of Rs. 225/- per month. For computing the compensation the learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 12, which we have found to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, hold that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 43,200/-.
14. Since the tractor was being driven by the unlicensed person, i.e., respondent No. 1, it was the breach of material condition of insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable for compensation, as held by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe 1996 ACJ 253 (SC).
15. On the above discussion it is found that the learned Tribunal had ignored the material aspects of the case and cursorily dismissed the claim petition. Whereas in the circumstances and on the evidence led by both the parties the claimants were entitled to compensation. The claimants were paid Rs. 15,000/- under the no fault liability. The said amount was deposited by the insurance company, which has preferred M.A. No. 270 of 1992. Since in the impugned award, no order regarding its adjustment was passed, it is challenged for the limited relief. In the above facts, under the provisions of Section 96 (2)(b)(ii), no liability can, therefore, be fastened on the insurance company.
16. Consequently, it is held that the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation as the driver of the tractor did not possess the driving licence which was the breach of the policy condition. The company may, therefore, recover the amount of Rs. 15,000/- from respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the driver and owner of the tractor.
17. The learned Tribunal on the assessment of the evidence had itself assessed the loss to claimants at Rs. 43,200/-. The same amount is found to be reasonable amount of compensation to which the claimants are held entitled to receive from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As the appellants had earlier received Rs. 15,000/- towards no fault liability, therefore the appellants shall be entitled to recover only Rs. 28,200 from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant in M.A. No. 270 of 1992, i.e., the insurance company would be entitled to recover Rs. 15,000/- from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant shall also be entitled to receive the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs. 28,200/- from the date of claim petition, i.e., 11.2.1987 till its final payment.
18. A copy of this order shall be placed on record of Misc. Appeal No. 270 of 1992. However, in the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to the costs.