NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in these three appeals filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is whether the mere proof of the fact that person driving the motor vehicle at the time of occurrence of the accident resulting in death or injury to third party, would amount to breach of condition of the policy that the vehicle will not be driven by a person not holding a valid and effective driving licence and consequently the insurer will be absolved of the liability to pay any compensation to the third party.

(2.) Tractor No. HP 33-348 was owned by Narain Singh, respondent No. 2. He had insured himself with the appellant against his liability for payment of compensation in the event of the death of or injury to third party, on account of the use of the said tractor. On 21.11.1993 around 8 p.m. when the said tractor was being driven at a place called Naitla on Diargi-Rajwari Road in Balh area of Mandi District, by Dhaneshwar, respondent No. 1, who is the son of Narain Singh, the respondent No. 2, the owner of the tractor, an accident took place. One person who was on board the tractor as an employee died as a result of the accident. Two more persons, namely, Shiv Shankar, a son of the owner of the tractor, namely, Narain Singh, respondent No. 2 and one Bahadur Singh, who happened to be at the site of the accident also died, as the tractor while rolling down the road fell on them.

(3.) Three separate petitions were filed, one by the parents of Kashmir Singh, the employee, another by Tula Devi, wife of Narain Singh, respondent No. 2 and the third by the wife and children of Bahadur Singh, seeking the award of compensation. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not deny the occurrence of the accident, though they did deny that the cause of the accident was rash or negligent driving of the tractor. The appellant, impleaded as respondent No. 3 in all the three petitions, raised a number of preliminary objections. One of them, which alone is relevant in these appeals, was that the driver of the tractor, namely, Dhaneshwar, respondent No. 1, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. The other objections raised by the insurance company need not be noticed, because findings qua them have not been challenged in these appeals.