NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SANTOSH DEVI (SMT.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection haw been filed by the non-claimant-appellant and claimants-respondents respectively assailing the award dated 15.2.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar in M.A.C. Claim Case No. 485/2005.

(2.) Brief facts noticed are that Hari Ram was coming on Luna to his residence on 15.9.2004 at about 10.00 P.M. in the night and at that time a Auto Taxi, bearing No. RJ-23-P-2871, which was being driven in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and hit the Luna, consequent thereto, Hari Ram fell down and died on the spot. It is stated that he was aged about 35 years. The Tribunal, after analysing the material on record, allowed claim to the extent of Rs. 3,83,840.00 which is assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company and cross objection has been filed on behalf of the claimants-respondents that the claim allowed is on the lower side and requires to be enhanced appropriately.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant at the outset contended that there was head or, collision and therefore, both were negligent whereas the Tribunal, on assumption and presumption, has held that only Bhagirath Mai, who was driving Auto Taxi was negligent. He contended that on perusal of the site plan also, the fact emerges that the deceased was also driving the vehicle on the main road and almost on the opposite direction. Therefore, once the site plan also proves that three was negligence of the deceased, the finding by the Tribunal is unjust ad perverse. He further contended that even the eye-witness Matadeen has said about this factum. He further contended that the driver Bhagirath Mal was driving Auto Taxi when he was not entitled to drive the same in as much as be had no valid driving license of Light Commercial Vehicle (L.C.V.) rather he had a licence of Light Motor Vehicle (L.M.V.) and since the Auto Taxi was a commercial vehicle, he was not entitled to drive the same and contended that there is vast difference in Light Motor Vehicle and Light Commercial Vehicle in as much as in case of Light Motor Vehicle, the license issued is for about 20 years but in a cast of Light Motor Vehicle, the same is required to be renewed every three years. H: further contended that the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai & Ors., 2006(2) T.A.C. 1 (SC) as also in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 253, has come to the conclusion that if there is no slid license to drive the vehicle, which was being driven at the intended the, then such claim is not required to be considered. He further contended that the Tribunal has not considered these issues appropriately and submits that the issue involved in the instance case, deserves to be decided in favour of the appellant in tie light of the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, referred to supra.