ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JAI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same accident. F.A.O. No. 308 of 2000 has been preferred by the insurance company contesting its liability to pay the awarded amount and F.A.O. No. 448 of 2000 has been preferred by the claimants praying pondent No. 3 and was being driven by Deepak Sharma, respondent No. 4. At about 10 p.m., on that day, this vehicle met with an accident when it fell into a ravine about 200 ft deep. Maheshwar Singh suffered fatal injuries/The other occupants of the van were injured. driver of the ill-fated vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. This is the issue which was urged before this court in the appeal filed by the insurance company. It was submitted that Deepak Sharma, respondent No. 4 was not authorised to drive the van which was being plied as a taxi, as vide Exh. RD which is the driving licence he was only licensed to drive a light motor vehicle and was not endorsed for permission to drive a taxi. Learned counsel has urged with some vehemence that no liability could be fastened on the insurance company. Learned counsel submits that Exh. RA proved that the vehicle had been registered as a tourist taxi and Exh. RD did not contain any endorsement authorising respondent No. 4 to drive a commercial vehicle. This submission of the appellant needs to be rejected. 5. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, 2008 ACJ 721 (SC), the Apex Court while dealing with this question as to whether such endorsement was required or not, held that the amendment which was carried out in the Motor Vehicles Act in section 2 (21) and rule 14 of the Motor Vehicles Rules are applicable with prospective effect, that is to say on or after 28.3.2001 when these amendments were notified. The court held: