NAND KISHOR Vs. AMIT WALIYA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants who filed the petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for brevity) under Sections 166 and 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for claiming compensation on account of death of Raj Kumar Jolly (deceased) in a road accident which took place on 20 th January, 2001 at about 8.30 P.M. The deceased was walking on foot to the Saturday Market to purchase vegetables. When he reached near Kakkar Property Dealer and was on the road in front of park near house No.BE-374/A, Hari Nagar, he was knocked down by a scooter No.DDR 1756, which was driven by one Amit Waliya (minor driver). It is not in dispute that Amit Waliya was a minor and was not holding any driving license. The case of the claimants was that the minor driver was driving the offending vehicle at a high speed recklessly and negligently, which hit the deceased with a great force because of which the deceased suffered fatal injuries and died. The claimants had impleaded the minor driver as the respondent No.1. The appellant herein, who was the owner of the said twowheeler scooter and National Insurance Company with which it was insured as the respondent No. 2 & 3 respectively.

(2.) It has been conclusively established and proved before the Tribunal, on the basis of evidence on record, that the deceased received fatal injuries and died on account of rash and negligent driving of scooter in question, which was driven by the minor driver. Compensation of Rs.12,80,000, on that basis is awarded to the four claimants, viz. widow of the deceased and three children of the deceased. The findings of the learned Tribunal on the aforesaid aspect including on the amount of compensation are not under challenge in this appeal and therefore, it is not necessary to state the same in detail. In this appeal, we are concerned with altogether different question. While awarding the compensation in favour of the claimants and directing the insurance company to pay the same in the first instance, the insurance company has been given right to recover the said amount from the appellant herein. The appellant is aggrieved by this direction of the Tribunal permitting the insurance company, the amount recovered from him. As we are concerned with this limited issue, only those facts which are necessary to determine this question in the instant appeal have been mentioned.

(3.) The reason given by the Tribunal in support of the aforesaid view taken by it is that the minor driver was not having any driving license and it has been established that he was driving the offending vehicle which belonged to the appellant herein. The Tribunal has further stated that it was not the case of the appellant that he had never authorized the minor driver to drive the offending vehicle. This led the Tribunal to conclude that the appellant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance company by authorizing a minor driver to drive his vehicle without holding a proper and valid license and therefore, insurance company cannot be liable to be held to pay the compensation under the terms and conditions of the policy, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh & Ors., 2004 3 SCC 297.