LexISHWAR CHANDRA AND ORS. versus THE ORIENT AL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ISHWAR CHANDRA AND ORS. v. ~- - THE ORIENT AL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. MARCH 8, 2007 B (S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-s. 15(1)-Motor accident-By driver-Driver not having valid licence for the vehicle on the date of accident-Licence had i C expired 8 months before the date of accident-Liability to pay compensation- Whether on the Insurance company or the insured-Held: The renewal application not having been filed till the date of accident, the driver cannot be said to have holding valid licence-Hence insured liable to pay the compensation, and not the Insurance company. D A motor accident took place on 28.4.1995 causing death of one person. In a claim petition, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation. The award was confirmed by High Court with the observation that it was open to the Insurance Company-respondent No. 1 to recover the amount from the insured. The review petition of the Insurance Company on the ground that it ~ -• was not liable to pay the insurance as on the date of accident, the driver was E not holding any valid licence, was dismissed. F G In appeal to this Court, appellant-insured contended that though the licence of the driver had expired on 27.8.1994, the same later on having been renewed, the Insurance Company was liable to reimburse the amount of compensation payable by the appellants'to the claimant-respondents. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: From a bare perusal of Section 15 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1980, it would appear that the licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The proviso appended to Section 15(1) in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The licence expired on 27.8.1994. The accident took place 28.04.1995. As on the said date, the renewal application had not fl 720 ISHWAR CHANDRA>: TllE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. [S.B. SINHA. J] 72 \ been filed, the driver, did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle A -.~ met with the accident. !Para 911723-DI National Insurance Company Limited v. Swarai1 Singh and Ors., 12004] 3 SCC 297; Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. v. Nanjappan and Ors .. AIR (2004) SC 1630 and National Insurance Company v. Kusum Rai and Ors .. 12006) 4 sec 2so, relied on. B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1213 of2007. t From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 51/2005. Neelam Singh, Garvesh Kabra and Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellants. D. Bhardrajan, Sidh Nath Tewari and Shiv Prakash Pandey for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. c D 2. One Reshma Devi, aged about 40 years, was going to take bath at Rajghat Ganga with her son, Respondent No.3 herein. Driver. of an Eicher E Tractor bearing Registration No. U.P.30/8423 was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently hit her as a result whereof, she fell down. She died on 01.05.1995. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act) was filed by Respondent No. 2 herein. The said tractor was insured with Respondent No.I, the Insurance Company. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by an award dated 14.10.2004 determined the amount of compensation payable to the said respondent at Rs.1,06,000/-. Out of the said amount, a sum ofRs.75,000/- was to be paid to Respondent No. 2 (husband of the deceased) and Rs.31,000/- to her son, Respondent No.3 herein. I 4. Respondent No. I, however, preferred an appeal thereagainst, which was dismissed by an order dated 24.01.2005, stating : "We, therefore, while dismissing the aforesaid appeal give liberty to F G the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings against the owner H 722 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 3 S.C.R. and driver of the vehicle for realization of the amount, which is to be paid by the Insurance Company in terms of the award to the third party-claimant subject to establishing its case before the Tribunal. We further provide that the amount, which is in deposit before this Court as well as before the Tribunal shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants/respondents. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.