Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mannulal vs Chhagan Lal Chauhan And Ors. on 25 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2005ACJ438
Bench: Deepak Verma, S.K. Seth
JUDGMENT
Deepak Verma and S.K. Seth, JJ.
1. Mr. R.N. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anil Goel, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, insurance company, are heard on LA. No. 2767 of 2003. This is an application for early hearing of the appeal on the ground that the appellant is an old man of 75 years and is not keeping good health. It is submitted that the only point involved in the appeal is with regard to the liability of the insurance company.
2. After hearing learned counsel for parties and on due consideration the application is allowed. With consent arguments heard.
3. This appeal is directed against the award dated 20.4.2001 passed by the 13th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 83 of 1999. By the impugned award the Tribunal found that the appellant sustained permanent disability on account of road accident which took place on 23.3.1999. The Claims Tribunal also found and held that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by respondent No. 2 Madanlal. From the evidence the Tribunal also found that at the time of the accident the offending vehicle belonged to respondent No. 1 and was insured with respondent No. 3. However, learned Tribunal held that respondent No. 2 had no effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, therefore, exonerated the insurance company from liability to pay compensation and ordered that the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,72,903 shall be recovered only from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Except for the last finding, all other findings have not been assailed before us.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in law in exonerating the insurance company. The learned counsel for appellant placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 319 (SC), as also the Division Bench decisions of this court reported in Mohd. Karim Khan v. Samsher Khan, 1999 ACJ 1250 (MP); United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimla Bai, 2002 ACJ 854 (MP) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sugan Bai, 2003 (II) MPWN, SN 29, submitted that undisputedly the respondent No. 2 had a valid driving licence and in view of this fact the insurance company ought to have been held responsible to pay compensation jointly and severally to the appellant.
5. Per contra, Mr. Anil Goel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submitted that in view of the various provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, dealing with the grant of licence submitted that the decisions on which learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance are distinguishable, therefore, are of no avail to the appellant.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, including the decisions on which reliance has been placed. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 319 (SC), it is clear that the insurance company cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation. Undisputedly an autorickshaw is a light motor vehicle as defined under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also not disputed that respondent No. 2 had a valid and effective licence to drive a light motor vehicle. In our considered opinion absence of an endorsement by the Licensing Authority would not make the licence of the respondent No. 2 invalid or ineffective, especially in view of the fact that the vehicle involved in the present appeal is an autorickshaw. Following the decision of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this court recently has held that when a driver is having a valid and effective driving licence for a light motor vehicle, the weight thereof is less than 6000 kg. (before the amendment) non-description in the licence by the Licensing Authority would not make any difference and the insurance company was held responsible to pay the compensation. [See National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sugan Bai, 2003 (II) MPWN, SN 29].
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the binding nature of the decision of the Apex Court, we find that the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated insurance company. Accordingly, we hold that insurance company is also liable to pay compensation to the appellant jointly and severally.
8. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that he is not pressing this appeal for enhancement and the appellant is satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Mr. Goel learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that since the insurance company was exonerated, therefore, no appeal was preferred, though the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the appellant is on the higher side.
9. We have gone through the evidence on record and we find that appellant had sustained fracture in the right leg and he remained in bed for almost 6 months as is clear from the evidence of Dr. Shrish Pathak, AW 3. Dr. Ashutosh Verma, AW 5, had also examined the appellant and assessed permanent disability to the extent of 28 per cent on account of the fracture of the leg. Thus after going through the evidence we find that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The respondent No. 3 shall bear the costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000, if certified.