NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. DEVRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Assurance Company has preferred this appeal against the Award dated 25.9.1996 passed by Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 20 of 1991 on the ground that since the tractor involved in the accident was not being driven by driver Bharatsingh but was being driven by the deceased himself who was not authorised to drive and was also not having a valid driving licence. Therefore, there is a breach of conditions of the policy and the Assurance Company is not liable for the payment of any amount towards the compensation and the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of deceased Nanalal. Deceased Nanalal was resident of village Nagari. Respondent No. 5 is the owner of tractor bearing registration number MPD 1224. The said tractor was under the control of respondent No. 6 and being driven by respondent No. 7 Bharatsingh. The said tractor was insured with the appellant. The claimants' case was that on 8.5.1989 at about 3.30 p.m. deceased Nanalal was in the village Nagari. Bharatsingh, driver of the tractor, who was carrying boring machine contractor asked the deceased Nanalal to accompany him to village Petlawad to locate him the well of a farmer where he had to take the tractor and machine for boring purposes. On the request of respondent No. 7 Bharatsingh, deceased Nanalal went on tractor to show him the place. The tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 7. When the tractor reached the place Nalkheda, from opposite direction a cyclist was coming. The driver took a short turn but could not control the tractor and in the result the tractor was turned over. Nanalal, who was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, fell down and sustained serious injuries and died immediately. Respondents No. 1 to 4, who were the claimants, filed a claim case before the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur. After holding an enquiry, considering the various objections, pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal found that the said tractor was being driven by respondent No. 7 Bharatsingh and the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the said tractor, the appellant Assurance Company as well as respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 57,600/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants alongwith the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition i.e. 7.11.1989 till its realisation. The Assurance Company has filed this appeal against the said award passed by the learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(3.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant Assurance Company is that when the accident took place, Bharatsingh was not having valid licence. Therefore, the Assurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insurer. The learned Tribunal held that at the time of accident Bharatsingh respondent No. 7 was driving the tractor involved in the accident and it was also held that the driver Bharatsingh was not having valid licence at the relevant time and Bharatsingh was helper. The learned Tribunal placed reliance on the decision in case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan 1987 ACJ 1411 : 1 (1987) ACC 413 (SC) in which it was observed: