RANCHI, India, Nov. 8 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 8:

1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in M.A.C No. 16 of 2013, whereby and whereunder liability to pay compensation of Rs.7,07,500/- has been fixed on the Insurance-Company.

2. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 691 of 2018 has been preferred by the InsuranceCompany, whereas M.A. No. 660 of 2018 has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount.

3. The facts are not in dispute that on 18.02.2013 at 5:30 p.m., Wakil Ganjhu met with a motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing registration No. WB41D-1463 in which he sustained fatal injuries and died. It is also not in dispute that the said truck was under the insurance cover of the appellant-Insurance Company.

4. The Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck and assessed the compensation taking Rs.4500/- as monthly income of the deceased from the occupation as a Mason.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that there was a fundamental breach in the term of insurance policy as the driver of the offending vehicle namely, Md. Parvej Alam, was not having a valid driving licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle at the time of accident. As per the case of the claimants, accident took place by the truck, which is a heavy motor vehicle, however, the driving licence, which was adduced into evidence and marked as Ext.7, shows that it was issued for light motor vehicle and was valid from 26.07.2010 to 25.07.2030.

6. In this view of the matter, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3055 of 2008), the Insurance-Company will not be liable to pay the compensation amount under Section 149 (2) of the M.V. Act, 1988. The ratio laid down in 2007 (4) JCR 129 is also to the same effect.

7. Learned counsel on behalf of the owner of the vehicle has entered into an appearance by filing Vakalatnama.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance-Company that initially the driving licence was issued to the driver for driving light motor vehicle which was subsequently renewed by endorsement. The detail of the driving licence was adduced into evidence and marked as Annexure-A from which it will be evident that the driver was permitted to drive heavy motor vehicle with effect from 20.09.2012, whereas, the accident took place on 19.02.2013. Meaning thereby at the time of accident the driver had a valid driving licence to drive heavy motor vehicle. No contrary evidence has been led with respect to Annexure-A filed by way of counter-affidavit.

9. In this view of the matter, the question for consideration before this Court is whether there was a breach of term of policy of insurance on account of not having a valid driving licence to the driver at the time of accident. Law is no longer res-integra and has been settled by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and has been followed subsequently a later judgment. It has been held by the Apex Court in Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2022 SCC Online SC 2119) that when an owner is hiring a driver, he, therefore, has to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which, on the face of it, looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has, in fact, been issued by competent authority or not.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrG%2BrQN7Pq6TnnjBhtwb0BpL0dAecbFqsTuO%2BgeGvHI5b&caseno=MA/660/2018&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010350012018&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.