Dear Sir/Madam,
An interesting question has arisen in MACT case that driver was holding two driving licenses, One from Delhi (LMV) other from Mathura (Commercial LMV). Both Valid licenses.
Insurer has taken the objection that Policy conditions are violated as driver is holding two licenses and not liable to pay compensation.
Owner himself is the driver.
Pl suggest if any judgment apart from:
Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Ramesh Chand Sethi And Others on 26 April, 2013
FAO No.7387 of 2010
Date of Decision: 26.04.2013
Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
By this judgment, two FAOs bearing F.A.O. No.7387 of 2010 and FAO No.7410 of 2010 shall be disposed of as the same are arising out of same award dated 22.09.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from FAO No.7387 of 2010.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the claimants were going on motorcycle which was being driven by Ramesh Chand Sethi, whereas, Banmali Sethi and Shashi Kan Sethi were pillion riders. On reaching near Magpie Chowk, Mathura Road, Faridabad, they were hit by Tata Canter 1109 bearing its registration No.HR-38-L-0452, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The riders of motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Both injured were shifted to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad and were got admitted as indoor patients. Thereafter, they were taken to Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad and remained admitted there for about a week. The claimant Ramesh Chand Sethi lodged the report with the police which resulted into FIR No.819 dated 17.12.2008 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC at Police Station Central Faridabad. Two separate claim petitions were filed by both the claimants and claimed compensation of Rs.5 lacs each along with interest @ 18% per annum. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed written statement and the claim petition was contested being not maintainable. Even the accident was denied and it was stated that the same had been filed just to extract compensation. The Insurance Company took the stand that the Insurance Company is not liable as there was no violation of terms and conditions of the policy.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad allowed both the claim petitions and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,03,900/- to claimant Ramesh Chand Sethi and Rs.1,02,900/- to claimant Banmali Sethi with costs and interest @ 7½ % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 50% of the amount of the compensation was ordered to be deposited for three years in fixed deposit account of any Nationalized Bank and the remaining 50% was ordered to be paid in cash. Two separate appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the award dated 22.09.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad in favour of both the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 22.09.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was having two driving licenses, whereas, as per Section 3 of the Motor Vehilce Act, a driver cannot possess two driving licenses. The Insurance Company also deposited the diet money for summoning the record from the Licensing Authority, Muzzafarnagar and the Licensing Authority, Mathura for verification of the driving licenses and to prove that the licenses were not valid at the time of accident. Learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence of the Insurance Company on the ground that the driving license (exhibit R-1) which was later on tendered, was not verified and the license (exhibit R-1) which was found in the possession of the driver himself was valid. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy and there was a violation of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of this Court in case United India Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Guddi Devi @ Raj Bala and others passed in FAO No.4825 of 2006, decided on 24.09.2010.
Learned counsel for the claimant opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the award passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned and based on evidence and no interferene is required by this Court.
Learned counsel for the claimant relies upon the judgment of this Court in case Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Dalbir Singh and others 1998 ACJ 1418 as well as National Insurance Company Limited vs Balraj and others 2012(1) RCR (Civil) 898. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned award as well as other documents on the file.
Admittedly, both the claimants got injured in the accident while going on motorcycle and were hit by Canter. Both of them remained 4 admitted in the hospital. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company was that the driving licnese was not produced before the Court at the time of leading evidence by the driver. The diet money was deposited for summoning the official of the licensing authority for verification of the driving license but no official of the licensing authority made any statement in this regard and hence, it cannot be said that the driving license was valid at the time of accident. However, it appears from the facts of the case that one driving license which was tendered into evidence by the respondent-driver was not questioned by the Insurance Company as no objection was raised. One more license was produced on record by the Insurance Company by stating that the same was not valid at the time of accident. The Tribunal has given a specific finding that the driving license-Exhibit P-1 and also exhibit R-5 were not put in evidence by the driver and this evidence could not be construed against him. The driving license (exhibit R-1) which was tendered in defence by the driver was not objected by the Insurance Company. License (exhibit R-1) which came from possession of driver himself was taken to be precedence over the driving license Exhibit P-1. The license issued by the Licensing Authority, Mathura was valid and was effective from 20.10.2007 to 19.10.2010 and even at the time of accident. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, whereas, in the judgment National Insurance Company Limited (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the claimant, it has been held that driving license which has not been verified by the Insurance Company cannot be said that it belongs to the driver. In the present case, one driving license was tendered by the driver which was not objected by the Insurance Company but the other driving license which was shown to be issued in the name of the driver, was not verified by the Licensing Authority. Hence, it cannot be said that the said license was valid or not. Moreover, in case, a driver is having two licenses and out of that two licenses, if one licnese is valid at the time of accident then it cannot be said that there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The driver of the offending vehicle has disputed the driving license produced by the Insurance Company. No evidence has been led by the Insurance Company regarding genuineness or otherwise of that license. In such like situation, it cannot be said that the driver was not having a valid driving license when the license tendered by him was found to be valid at the time of accident. The other disputed driving license cannot be taken into consideration. In case, a person is having two driving licenses, then it is for the Licensing Authority to take action for having two driving licenses against the driver in accordance with law. However, in case of claim of compensation, it cannot be said that in case the driver is having a valid driving license then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation.
In view of the facts as mentioned above, there is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and both the appeals, being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
26.04.2013 JUDGE
Sushil Kr. Agnihotri
