Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Before the E.C. Court, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 - wife of the deceased driver Manjegowda - Smt. Chandrakala got herself examined as PW-1 and also got examined one more witness Sri. Sathya as PW-2 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-11. On behalf of the respondents, one Smt. Thejeswani Chandrashekar, an Officer of the second respondent - Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 and the respondent No.1 - Sri.M.R. Venkatesh was examined as RW-2 and documents from Exs.R-1 to R-5 were got marked as exhibits. Later the evidence of RW2 was expunged since he did not tender himself for his cross examination.

23. In the instant case, suggestions were made to PW-1 to the effect that the deceased did not possess a valid Driving Licence to drive the Tractor with Trailer, however, the witness did not admit the said suggestion as true. On the other hand, the petitioners who includes PW-1, admittedly, have not produced the Driving Licence of the deceased Manjegowda. PW-1 has stated that she was not in possession of the Driving Licence of her deceased husband.

24. One Mrs. Thejeswani Chandrashekar, an Officer of the Insurance Company, who was examined as RW-1, in her examination-in-chief, has specifically stated that their Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the first respondent therein (i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle) and to pay any compensation to the petitioners because the first respondent-owner has violated the policy terms and conditions by allowing the deceased to drive the Tractor and Trailer who was not possessing a valid Driving Licence to drive the said vehicle. In her cross- examination, her statement that the deceased driver had no valid Driving Licence to drive a Tractor and Trailer has not been denied. On the other hand, RW-1 in her cross- examination has also stated that the Investigating Officer of their Insurance Company has enquired with the petitioners as to whether the deceased had possessed a Driving Licence and recorded their statement. RW-1 has also produced the copies of the two letters, both dated 19- 08-2015 addressed by the Insurance Company to the owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1 in the E.C. Court) and to the wife of the deceased driver (i.e. petitioner No.1 in the E.C. Court), calling upon them to produce a copy of the Driving Licence of deceased Manjegowda and got them marked at Exs.R-3 and R-5 respectively. Postal receipts and acknowledgment are marked at Ex.R-4. Thus, the appellant Insurance Company, as respondent No.2 in the E.C. Court had made all its efforts to secure the details of the Driving Licence, if any, of the deceased Manjegowda. However, the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.1 in the E.C. Court (respondent No.5 herein) as well the petitioner No.1 in the E.C. Court (also respondent No.1 herein) have not responded to the said notices. Had really the deceased Manjegowda possessed the Driving Licence, either of these two persons to whom the notices were sent by the Insurance Company would have furnished the details of the Driving Licence of the deceased Manjegowda or at least given necessary particulars, since the Driving Licence was supposed to be in the custody of the petitioners in the E.C. Court and its copy or the details were required to be known to the respondent No.1 (owner of the offending vehicle) in the E.C. Court. Since they withheld a vital information which was to their exclusive knowledge, information and custody and did not pass on the same to the insurer despite its specific notice to them, an adverse inference is required to be drawn to the effect that, the deceased driver of the Tractor and Trailer in question did not possess a valid Driving Licence as on the date of the occurrence of the road traffic accident in question.

28. In the instant case, as analysed above, the petitioners before the E.C. Court, who themselves claim to be the dependents of the deceased driver Manjegowda, have not furnished any details about the Driving Licence, if any, possessed by the deceased Manjegowda, despite they being served with a notice by the Insurance Company as per Ex.R-5. Interestingly, the respondent No.1 in the E.C. Court, who was the owner of the Tractor and Trailer in question and proved to be the employer of the deceased Manjegowda, though in his Written Statement had denied that the deceased Manjegowda was his employee, however, he did not tender himself for his cross- examination as RW-2, as such, his entire evidence was expunged. Further, he (owner of the offending vehicle) also did not respond to the notice served upon him by the Insurance Company calling upon him to furnish certain information including the details about the Driving Licence possessed by the deceased driver Manjegowda. Despite the receipt of the notice, a copy of which is at Ex.R-3 and the postal receipt and acknowledgement at Ex.R-4, the said owner of the Tractor and Trailer and employer of the deceased driver Manjegowda did not give any information to the Insurance Company. As such, as already held above, the deceased did not possess a valid Driving licence at all as on the date of the occurrence of the road traffic accident. Further there is no evidence to show that the respondent No.1 in the E.C. Court, i.e. the owner of the offending Tractor and Trailer had either checked or verified the Driving Licence of the deceased Manjegowda or had taken reasonable care by giving instructions to him to get his Driving Licence renewed, provided he had possessed one such Driving Licence and it had got expired. In the case on hand, no such evidence has been led from the side of the said respondent before the E.C. Court. The insurance policy, a copy of which is produced by the Insurance Company and marked at Ex.R-2 shows that, there is a specific condition that the driver of the insured vehicle should hold an effective Driving Licence at the time of the accident and that he is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Since the appellant Insurance Company has established that the deceased Manjegowda did not possess a valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of the occurrence of the road traffic accident and that the owner of the vehicle who was the employer of the deceased driver Manjegowda was negligent in ascertaining the possession of the Driving Licence by the deceased Manjegowda having entrusted the Tractor and Trailer to him to drive the same, there is a clear violation of the condition of the terms of the policy. As such, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Beli Ram's case (supra), the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.

29. However, the E.C. Court, without looking into the aspect whether the deceased driver Manjegowda was possessing a valid Driving Licence or not, has confined its analysis of evidence only to the employer and employee relationship between the respondent No.1 before it and the deceased driver Manjegowda and that the occurrence of the injury to the said deceased Manjegowda which resulted in his death was during the course of his employment. Answering the said point in the affirmative, it proceeded to hold that the petitioners before it are entitled for compensation and that the present appellant who was the respondent No.2 therein being the insurer was liable to pay the amount and the compensation.