SHYAM LAL Vs. URMILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, H.P., under a common verdict, respectively pronounced, upon, MAC Petition No. 38-S/2 of 2013, MAC Petition No. 37-S/2 of 2013, and, upon, MAC Petition No. 39-S/2 of 2013, on 8.12.2017, hence, therethrough determined respectively, vis-a-vis, the claimants concerned, compensation amounts, respectively borne, in sums, of Rs.45,000/-, Rs.70,079/-, and, Rs.36,000/-, and, thereon levied interest at the rate of 9% per annum, and, it was ordered to commence from the date of filing of the apposite claim petition, and, upto realization(s) thereof. However, the learned tribunal, upon, making findings adversarial, to the owner of the offending vehicle, vis-a-vis, the issue appertaining, to, the driver of the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, holding a valid and effective driving licence, to drive the offending vehicle concerned, (a) thereafter proceeded to apply, the, principle of pay and recovery, (b) wherethrough, the insurer of the offending vehicle, was mandated, to initially satisfy, the award, (c) and, thereafter liberty stands preserved, vis-a-vis, it hence to recover, the, compensation amounts, in accordance with law, rather, from the owner of the offending vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle, is hence, aggrieved, by the the common verdict, recorded on, 8.12.2017, by the learned tribunal, respectively upon, MAC Petition No. 38-S/2 of 2013, MAC Petition No. 37-S/2 of 2013, and, upon, MAC Petition No. 39-S/2 of 2013, hence, therefroms, has, reared the instant afore FAOs, before this Court, wherethrough, he, rather strives to cast hence onslaught(s) thereto.

(2.) The bedrock of the validity, of the afore contested pronouncement, rendered by the learned tribunal concerned, stands rested, upon, Ex.RW2/A, (i) exhibit whereof, comprises a photo copy of the driving licence, held by the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, one Shaukat Ali, (ii) besides therealongwith, hence, a, perusal of a copy of the RC appertaining to the offending vehicle, and, borne in Ex.RW1/A, is, also obviously imperative. Initially, a perusal of the apposite RC, embodied in Ex. RW1/A, unfolds, qua the offending vehicle, standing registered, as a heavy goods vehicle, and, though a perusal of Ex.RW2/A, also carries an echoing, vis-a-vis, the driver of the offending vehicle, hence holding, the, requisite authorization rather to drive, a, transport vehicle, and, duration of the afore authorization, is therein reflected, to commence from 22.5.2010 and, end, on 21.05.2013. However, the ill-fated mishap, involving the offending vehicle, occurred subsequent, to the expiry of the afore authorization, bestowed upon the driver of the offending vehicle, inasmuch, as it occurred, on 26.05.2013, and, uncontrovertedly thereat one Shaukat Ali, the, driver of the offending vehicle, (iii) obviously in the interregnum, since its expiry, and, till the happening of the ill-fated mishap, did not obtain, its renewal from the Motor Licencing Authority concerned. Furthermore, there is no application for renewal of Ex.RW2/A, for therethrough the afore Shaukat Ali, hence ensuring, its, apt renewal, (iv) rather also outside the statutory mandate encapsulated in the proviso, to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, inasmuch, as the requisite strivings, for renewal of Ex.RW2/A being recoursed either within 30 days, from its expiry or outside 30 days, reiteratedly, no apt, afore statutory strivings, hence, stood recoursed, by the afore Shaukat Ali. The provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act):-

(3.) However, for the reasons to be assigned hereafter, the afore reasoning, as meted, in the impugned award, by the learned tribunal concerned, is, extremely fragile, and, is amenable rather for outright rejection. (a) The learned tribunal, abysmally failing, to notice the apt provisions, borne in Section 14 of the Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-