DEVOBAI Vs. JALIMSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of aforesaid both the appeals as both the appeals arise out of the same award. Claimants have filed Misc. Appeal No. 149/03 challenging the quantum of compensation as well as the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal on issues No. 2 to 4 regarding valid driving licence and breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Insurance Company has filed Misc. Appeal No. 849/02 on the ground of its liability that looking to the breach of conditions of the policy the insurance company is not liable, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has wrongly given right to recovery from the owner of the vehicle.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 10-6-2001 deceased Bhagwan Singh was coming from Hazira on a bicycle and going towards Padav at Gwalior. Near a dustbin at Loko one truck carrying crane bearing its Registration No. MPW 8169, which was being driven by respondent No. 1-Jalim Singh and owned by respondent No. 2-Anoop Singh and insured with respondent No. 3-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., was coming from the side of Padav It was alleged that the said truck (crane) was being driven rashly and negligently. It came on the wrong side and hit cyclist Bhagwan Singh. In the accident Bhagwan Singh received injuries in the head and in the various other parts of the body. The respondent No. 1, driver ran away from the spot leaving the offending truck on spot. The Crime No. 224/01 was registered against the driver of the said vehicle. During treatment deceased died. Initially he was admitted in J.A. Group of Hospitals at Gwalior and thereafter on 12-6-2001 the deceased was referred to Delhi. At Delhi he was admitted in Vibhan Hospital where he died on 18-6-2001. Apart from the criminal case claimants who are the widow and sons have filed claim petition. Before the Claims Tribunal it was objected by the respondent-insurance company that the driver was not having valid driving licence for driving the said truck bearing crane, which was a special type of vehicle and thereby committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal recorded the finding in favour of the insurance company but directed the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal considering the income and age of the deceased, which was around 50 years and the fact that since the deceased was working on the post of Dusting Operator in the Food Corporation of India and was getting salary of Rs. 11,182/- per month and Rs. 1,34,184/- per year, considered the dependency of Rs. 81,456/- and after applying the multiplier of 10 awarded compensation of Rs. 8,14,560/-. Against the said award claimants have filed Misc. Appeal No. 149/03 on the ground that the multiplier is on lower side and insurance company has filed Misc. Appeal No. 849/02 on the ground that the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation as per the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

(3.) SHRI K.S. Rochalani, learned counsel for the insurance company, vehemently argued and submitted that the vehicle was insured as "Miscellaneous And Special Type of Vehicles Policy A Act Only". Make of the vehicle has been mentioned in the policy as "Delivery Truck". It is not in dispute before us that the respondent No. 1 driver was having driving licence which was of Light Motor Vehicle only and valid from 9-12-1998 to 14-2-2003 and thereafter there was an endorsement of Heavy Goods Vehicle w.e.f. 15-2-2000. These particulars of driving licence have been mentioned in Ex. D/3, according to which it is clear that on the date of accident the driver was having licence to drive the light motor vehicle as well on heavy goods vehicle.