SURAJ BHAN Vs. SATPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the award dated 27. 1. 1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari, whereby the Tribunal had partly accepted the claim of the appellant and awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- only the appellant has filed this appeal and has prayed for acceptance of the claim petition in its entirety.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that while he was going on his scooter from Jagadhari to Kala Amb, the appellant was struck from behind by Truck No. DRT-85-D 616102 near Sadhaura Canal. As a result of the impact, the appellant and his companion Raj Kumar fell down and received injuries.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of the appellant is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. We are also of the opinion that the Tribunal has seriously erred in determining the amount of compensation payable to the appellant. When the truck was taking right turn, it was plainly the duty of the truck driver to see that the road was clear and no vehicle was coming from behind. The mere giving of signal by the truck driver for the purpose of taking turn cannot be treated as sufficient to absolve him of the responsibility to take care to see that no one else was driving on that side. In the present case, no evidence was produced by the driver of the truck to prove that he had given sufficient warning to the vehicles coming from behind by giving the signal sufficiently for a long time and then took the turn towards the right. Thus, the Tribunal was in error in holding that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence. Likewise, the factum of the appellant not possessing valid driving licence was wholly irrelevant for the purpose of determination of liability of the truck driver. The validity of the driving licence of the injured can have no relevance on this issue. The person driving a vehicle without a valid driving licence may be guilty of violating the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the rules frames thereunder, and in a given case, the Insurance Company may set up a defence of invalidity of the driving licence but the driver of the offending vehicle cannot claim immunity from his liability by pleading that the driver of the vehicle which was struck by the truck was not having a valid driving licence. In short, the absence of a valid driving licence with the driver of the vehicle which is struck by an offending vehicle which is driven in a rash and negligent manner, cannot be a ground for absolving the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle of their liability to pay the compensation. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal has seriously erred in recording a finding that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%.