In Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
& Ors.2019 SAR (Civil) 795, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :
“7. On the issue of liability to pay the
compensation awarded, we affirm the view taken
by the High Court that the Respondent – Insurance
Company is absolved of the liability to bear the
compensation, as evidence has been produced from
the office of the Regional Transport Office to prove
that the drivers of the two offending trucks were
driving on the basis of invalid driving licenses. It is
also relevant to note that the owners and drivers of
the offending trucks have not appeared at any
stage of the proceedings, including this Court.
7.1. This Court in Shamanna & Ors. v. The
Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors., held that if the driver of the offending
vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the
principle of ‘pay and recover’ can be ordered to
direct the insurance company to the pay the victim,
and then recover the amount from the owner of the
offending vehicle. (2018) 9 SCC 650. {Para 6}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.172 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.765 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.172 OF 2019
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. V/s. SMT. MANISHA SANJAY NIKAM
CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th FEBRUARY 2022
JUDGMENT :
1 This first appeal is preferred by the New India Assurance
Company Limited (original respondent) against the judgment
and order dated 13th April 2018 passed in M.A.C.P. No.62 of 2013
by the learned Member, M.A.C.P., Karad thereby directing the
appellant and others to pay jointly and severally to the claimant a
sum of Rs.7,11,000/- towards compensation together with simple
interest thereon at rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization of entire amount within two months from the passing
of the judgment and order.
2 I have heard both the parties. The learned counsel for
appellant has raised a very short issue. As far as the amount of
award is concerned, it is not disputed. However, according to the
learned counsel for appellant, the learned Tribunal ought to have
considered that on the date of accident, the driver was not
holding a valid driving license and in such circumstances, it
ought to have ordered that the appellant is entitled to recover the
amount of award from the owner of the vehicle of the offending
truck, which was rejected by the learned Member.
3 I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent /
claimant who also admits the position of law and has no
objection if it is so ordered by this Court.
4 On going through the record it is seen that respondent no.6
- owner of the offending truck though duly served through
private notice i.e. through Registered A.D./ Speed Post (Flag B)
but remained absent. It is also seen from the record that during
the pendency of the present appeal, the driver of the said
offending truck i.e. respondent no.7 came to be deleted, in view
of pursis (Exhibit 21) filed before the M.A.C.T.
5 Perused the impugned judgment and order.
6 Though learned trial Court noted that on the date of
accident the driver of the offending vehicle was having no driving
license, but made following observations at paragraph 21 :
“21 However, from the above details of license
it can be said that offending truck driver has a
driving skill to drive the truck and it is difficult to
say that he has lost his skill or forgotten expertise
for driving the vehicle. The said driver has got
renewed the license w.e.f. 27/3/2013 after it was
expired on 12/2/2012. The accident took place
hardly 11 days prior to 27/3/2013. Therefore, I
am of the opinion that the opponent no.3 cannot
avoid its liability. Therefore, opponent nos.1 and 3
are liable to pay compensation, jointly and
severally.”
6 In Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
& Ors.2019 SAR (Civil) 795, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :
“7. On the issue of liability to pay the
compensation awarded, we affirm the view taken
by the High Court that the Respondent – Insurance
Company is absolved of the liability to bear the
compensation, as evidence has been produced from
the office of the Regional Transport Office to prove
that the drivers of the two offending trucks were
driving on the basis of invalid driving licenses. It is
also relevant to note that the owners and drivers of
the offending trucks have not appeared at any
stage of the proceedings, including this Court.
7.1. This Court in Shamanna & Ors. v. The
Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors., held that if the driver of the offending
vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the
principle of ‘pay and recover’ can be ordered to
direct the insurance company to the pay the victim,
and then recover the amount from the owner of the
offending vehicle. (2018) 9 SCC 650.
7.2 We deem it just and fair to direct the
Respondent – Insurance Company to pay the
enhanced amount of compensation as indicated in
Para. 6 above, to the Appellant within a period of
12 weeks from the date of this judgment. The
Respondent – Insurance Company is directed to
make out a Demand Draft in the name of the
Appellant, which can be used for his care for the
rest of his life. The Respondent – Insurance
Company is entitled to recover the amount from
the owners and drivers of the two offending
trucks.”
7 In Shamanna and Another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and Others (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 650, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :
“14 So far as the recovery of the amount from
the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company
shall recover as held in the decision in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan and others (2004)
13 SCC 224 wherein this Court held that : (SCC p.
226 para 8)
“8…...For the purpose of recovering the same
from the insured, the insurer shall not be
required to file a suit. It may initiate a
proceeding before the concerned Executing
Court as if the dispute between the insurer and
the owner was the subject matter of
determination before the Tribunal and the
issue is decided against the owner and in
favour of the insurer.””
8 From the impugned judgment and order at hand it is more
than clear that on the date of accident the driver of the offending
vehicle was having no valid driving license. This being so, the
learned Member, M.A.C.T., could not have overlooked that
infirmity while fixing the responsibility of the respondents. It
seems that the learned Member also did not keep in mind the
above dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court and for that simple
reason the finding of the learned Member is not sustainable in
law.
9 In the result, the impugned judgment and order of the
learned Member of the M.A.C.T., in so far as amount of award is
concerned, the same is affirmed. Further, in so far as direction
given to the appellant directing the appellant to pay the sum of
Rs.7,11,000/- towards compensation together with simple
interest is concerned, is set aside, and the appeal is partly
allowed. In view of above, pending Interim Application 765 of
2021 also stands disposed off.
10 I direct that the appellant Insurance Company shall pay the
compensation to the respondents/claimants along with accrued
interest and the appellant Insurance Company shall recover the
same from the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent no.6. No
costs.
(V. G. BISHT, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment