JAG ROSHNI Vs. DAYAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 10. 08. 1999 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(2.) THE brief summary of the facts of the of the case are as under:-On 06. 02. 1992 at about 8:40pm, the deceased Shri Hari Chand was going to loni Road bus stop, when all of a sudden he was hit from behind by a Bus bearing registration No. DEP 2748 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Shri dayal Chand. As a result of this impact, the deceased received injuries and he was removed to G. T. B. Hospital where he was declared "brought dead". Mr. J. S. Kanwar, counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal at least should have given the recovery rights to the insurance company to recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. The contention of the counsel for the appellant was that it is not a case where the driver was not having the requisite licence to drive the vehicle, but it is the case where the licence was got renewed by the driver after some gap beyond the period of 30 days prescribed under Section 15 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention of the counsel for the appellant was that in such a case it cannot be said that driver of the offending vehicle was incompetent to drive the offending vehicle. Counsel for the appellant further contended that renewal of the licence under the Motor vehicles Act can be sought within a period of five years and in the present case the renewal was sought within the said period and therefore, keeping in view the present legislation, which is beneficial piece of legislation, meant to secure the rights of the third parties, the directions could have been given to the insurance company to satisfy the Award at the first instance and then recover the same from the insured. Counsel for the appellant further contended that in such like cases the victims of the accident cannot be made to suffer to keep chasing the owner/insured of the offending vehicle for realization of the Award amount specially when the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company. The contention of the counsel for the appellant was that the prime object of the Act is to protect the third party rights. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on para 4 of the Apex Court judgment entitled ishwar Chandra and Ors. vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in air 2007 SC 1445 and para 5 of the judgment entitled National Insurance Company ltd. Vs Jarnail Singh and Ors. reported in JT 2001 (Suppl. 2) SC 218.

(3.) MR. Kanwal Chaudhary, counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 insurance company on the other hand vehemently refuted the said submissions of the counsel for the appellant. Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary contended that in such like cases insurance company cannot be held liable to even pay the Award amount at the first instance due to there being no licence in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle on the relevant date of accident. The counsel thus contended that in such like cases, the insurance company is totally absolved and exonerated to pay the compensation amount. Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary has also placed reliance on the said judgment of Ishwar Chandra and Ors. (Supra) specially paras 8 and 9. The contention of the counsel for the respondent is that it is only in a case where the renewal has been obtained within 30 days as prescribed under section 15 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company can be made liable to pay the amount and not in a case where the renewal is not sought within the said prescribed period of 30 days. Counsel thus sought to urge that it is only in a case where the renewal takes place within 30 days, the renewal is effective from the date of the expiry of the licence and not in a case where the renewal is sought after the lapse of 30 days period. The Counsel thus contends that as on the relevant date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any licence and therefore, no direction can be given to the insurance company to satisfy the Award at the first instance and then recover the same from the insured. There is, thus, a clear breach of the terms of the policy conditions, counsel contended. Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kusum Rai and Ors. JT 2006 (4) SC 9.