Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Ltd. vs Lokendra Singh Yadav on 7 March, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 7 th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 3976 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE LTD. THROUGH BRANCH
MANAGER OFF OFFICE SITUATED AT 40 CANTT.
SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR M.P. THROUGH DIVISIONAL
O F F I C E NEAR ASHOKA HOTEL WRIGHT TOWN
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SOMESH SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. LOKENDRA SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI GOPAL
SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE TILA NARENI POLICE STATION
BAMHERI KALAN TEHSIL PALERA DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KEHAR SINGH YADAV S/O DAYAL YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHERA, POLICE
STATION MOHAN GARH, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
(DRIVER) (MADHYA PRADESH) (DRIVER)
3. M/S EASTERN MINERALS PARNERSHIP FIRM,
MANAGER PRANAV JAIN, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, S/O PREMCHAND JAIN R/O VILLAGE
HARSH MAHU, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL
NEWADI, DISTRICT NEWADI CURRENTLY
RESIDING AT 35 SCREEN ROAD, VIVEKANAND
MARG, SADAR BAZAR, CANTONMENT JHANSI,
DISTRICT JHANSI (OWNER) (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJMANI SINGROUL - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.1)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
MAURYA
Signing time: 19-03-2024
10:46:29
2
ORDER
This Misc. appeal has been filed by appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the award dated 12.02.2022 passed by the Member II MACT, Jatara, District Tikamgarh in MACC No. 12/2020.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 22.01.2019 at about 12:00 PM appellant with his friend was travelling from Nareni to Palera and when they reached at Govt. Society near Dayalu Rajput shop one Dumpher bearing Registration No. MP. 36 H 0886 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed the motorcycle of appellant. Due to which he sustained grievous injuries.
3. In reply respondent No. 1 and 2 filed written statement and denied all the facts and submits that Insurance company is liable for compensation because vehicle was insured with the company.
4. Non applicant No.3/Insurance Company denied the facts and filed written statement by submitting that no accident has been taken place and they filed a wrong case for claiming compensation.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of conditions of Insurance Policy. It is pertinent to mention that the offending vehicle was a truck weighing more than 7500 kg therefore, to drive the same a heavy transport vehicle license was required, however the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time only has license to drive light motor vehicle and as regards breach of policy conditions the appellant led requisite evidence and established the fact that driver of the offending vehicle had license to drive light motor vehicle and was driving a heavy vehicle weighing above 7500 kg., therefore, in this regard Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA MAURYA Signing time: 19-03-2024 10:46:29 3 the findings of learned Tribunal is perverse and liable to be set aside as per the dictum of Mukund Devagan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2017 ACJ 2011 (SC).
6 . It is also submitted by the learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company learned Tribunal has rate of interest awarded by learned MACT is 9% which is higher, in this regard a judgment of coordinate bench in the case o f Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Deepti and others passed on 08.04.2022 in MA No. 1487 of 2021 is relied on. Therefore on these two counts this misc. appeal is filed.
7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 opposed the appeal and submits that appropriate award has been passed in favour of him as a claimant.
8. So far respondent No. 2 and 3 are concerned they did not appear before the court despite service.
9 . The perusal of the record shows that non applicant No.3 which is appellant in this case has examined Uday Pal Gupta, Assistant Grade of their office who has exhibited Insurance Policy as Ex. D/1, investigator's report (Ex. D/2) and report of driving license issued by RTO, Tikamgarh as Ex.D/4 and copies of the fitness and registration issued by the RTO Tikamgarh as Ex.D/5 and D/6, D/7 and D/8. The report of the investigator contained the fact that on the date of accident non applicant No.1 driver of the offending vehicle Kehar Singh did not possess required license to drive heavy motor vehicle. He was having the driving license to drive light motor vehicle, in this regard the document Ex. D/4 is pertinent which is issued by the RTO, Tikamgarh and having the history of DL issued in favour of Kehar Singh non applicant No.1. It is evident from this document that DL initially issued in favour of Kehar Singh Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA MAURYA Signing time: 19-03-2024 10:46:29 4 was of light motor vehicle which is issued on 6.1.2019 to 6.7.2022. The date of accident in this case is 22.01.2019 therefore, at the time of accident Kehar Singh was having a valid license to drive light motor vehicle non transport but this document also reveals that DL to drive heavy transport vehicle was issued in favour of the Kehar Singh on 9th May, 2012 which was valid up to 8.5.2018 and he is authorize to drive the light transport vehicle under this license which was valid since 6.01.2009 up to 8.05.2018.
10. Therefore, at the time of accident this driving license issued in favour of Kehar Singh was not valid to drive heavy transport vehicle or light transport vehicle. Though, Kehar Singh (NAW-2) also examined himself and he has stated in his evidence that the license No. MP 36 R 2022 - 00044 - 69 was issued by RTO, Tikamgarh in his favour and it was valid to drive heavy transport vehicle. It was issued on 9.05.2012 and it is continuously renewed and is valid up to 6.07.2027. In this regard the copy of driving license as Ex. D/9 is filed this witness. EX.D/9 though copy of the driving license issued in favour of Kehar Singh and it depicts that the date of issue of driving license in favour of Kehar Singh for light motor vehicle since 6.1.2009 and for HTV and LTV since 09.05.2012 and 6.01.2009 respectively but validity for different class of vehicle is not specified in the copy of this driving license as clearly mentioned in Ex.D/4 as the history of this driving license and which is issued by the same RTO office, Tikamgarh Therefore, the document Ex.D/4 is reliable vis a vis Ex.D/9.
11. It was incumbent upon the non applicant No.1 to examine the RTO official to prove that on the date of accident he has been issued driving license in his favour to drive heavy transport vehicle but in absence of such evidence it Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA MAURYA Signing time: 19-03-2024 10:46:29 5 cannot be found proved that on the date of accident non applicant No.1 Kehar Singh was having a valid driving license to drive heavy transport vehicle.
12. So far as the vehicle in question is concerned, it was said to be a dumper vehicle and as per Insurance Policy Ex.D/1 it was having the weight of 31000 Kg. therefore, it was having weight of more than 7500 kg. Therefore, it included in heavy transport vehicle. It is proved on behalf of appellant/Insurance company that offending vehicle was heavy transport vehicle having the weight of 31000 kgs, more than 7500 kg, therefore the dictum in case of Mukand devagan (Supra), the driver of the offending vehicle non applicant No.1 was not authorize to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of accident, resultantly, there was a breach of Insurance Policy condition which is specified in Ex.D/1 which has been proved by the witness Udaypal (NAW-1) examined on behalf of non applicant No.3 appellant in this case.
13. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, in case of Oriental Insurance Company (Supra) it was held by the coordinate Bench of this Court that 9% per annum interest rate awarded by the Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. Therefore, rate of interest awarded 9% was reduced to 6% per annum. For this purpose the learned coordinate Bench relied upon the decision in case of Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Cuttack vs .Kalbalatha Mohaaapatra reported in 2005 (1) TAC 569 in which it was held that the rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy and policy adopted by Reserve Bank of India and accordingly reduced the rate of interest from 9% to 6%.
14. Here in this case also having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and prevailing circumstances 6% interest is appropriate, therefore rate of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA MAURYA Signing time: 19-03-2024 10:46:29 6 interest in impugned award is reduced by 9% to 6% per annum. The Insurance Company/appellant is exonerated from its liability for paying compensation but since there is breach of policy therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation along with interest to non applicant No.1 and thereafter it is at liberty to recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle i.e. non applicant No. 2 and 3.
1 5 . With this amendment in impugned award, this appeal is allowed accordingly.
16. C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE Akm Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA MAURYA Signing time: 19-03-2024 10:46:29