JAGDEV SHARMA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE driver and owner are disputing the liability of payment of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for brevity, the 'Tribunal') dated 14.02.2012. An award of Rs.3,65,000/ - was passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants. A plea had been raised by the insurance company that respondent No.1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. The vehicle which caused the accident was a canter. Licence Ex.R -2 entitled the driver to drive LMV whereas the vehicle driven by the driver was a MTV. The national permit Ex.R -3 revealed that the type of the vehicle as MTV and it was a goods carrier. The Tribunal noted that for MTV type of vehicle, a distinct licence was required. A finding was returned in favour of the insurance company on issue No.5.

(2.) THE only dispute that is under consideration, is whether a person having a licence to drive LMV can drive a MTV. The Tribunal relied upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol,2009 2 ACJ 641 and returned the findings in favour of the insurance company. The insurance company was given the right to recover the amount from the owner and the driver.

(3.) THE submission made on behalf of the appellant, while relying upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Ors., 2004 2 RCR(Civ) 114, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. K. Sundaramma @ Sundara and Ors, 2004 3 RCR(Civ) 840, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shankarlal and Anr, 2005 1 RCR(Civ) 550 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan, 2011 4 KerLT 412, was that in Swaran Singh's case it was held that if the driver is possessing a licence for one type of vehicle and was found driving another type of vehicle, then in each case evidence has to be led before the Tribunal whether the accident was caused solely because of some other intervening causes and having no nexus with the driver possessing requisite type of licence and considering the issues, a finding was returned that the insurance company cannot avoid its liability only because the driver was found to be driving another type of vehicle. It was urged that even in the case of an accident caused by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance company were directed to satisfy the award. It was urged that merely because the driver had a different category of licence would not amount to breach of the condition of the policy.