LexNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus KAUSHALYA DEVI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 500 ~,.. A NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. KAUSHALYA DEVI AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3542 of 2008) B MAY 13, 2008 [S.S. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] -·t Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 3, 4, 10 and 149 - Motor accident - By goods vehicle - Causing death of passenger c travelling therein - Claim for compensation - Granted by Tri- bunal holding the Insurance company liable to pay - High Court holding Insurance Company not liable - However, since awarded amount already deposited, directed the release thereof in favour of claimant with liberty to Insurance Com- D pany to recover it from the owner of offending vehicle - On >-~, appeal, held: The owner alone was liable to pay the compen- sation as driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid licence and the deceased was unauthorized passenger - If deposited amount withdrawn by the claimant, the Insurance E Company to recover it from the owner, and if not withdrawn, to refund the amount. A petition was filed seeking compensation u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The offending vehicle which caused death of the son of the claimant was insured. In- ~ F surance Company took the objections on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess effec- tive or valid driving licence and the deceased was travel- ing as an unauthorized passenger on the truck which was a goods carriage. Tribunal awarded the compensation. In G appeal High Court held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. However, in view of -'fl the fact that the amount awarded had already been de- posited, it was directed to be released in favour of the claimant with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover H 500 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. KAUSHAL YA 501 DEVI AND ORS . ... .. that amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. A Hence the present appeals by the Insurance Company as also owner of the offending vehicle. Allowing the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and dismissing that filed by the owner of the offending B vehicle, the Court t HELD: 1. The owner alone was liable to pay com- pensation to the first respondent for causing death of son of the claimant by rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. High Court was of the opinion c that the endorsement permitting the driver to drive heavy goods vehicle was ante dated and was not existing on the date of accident. On the relevant date, the driver only held a licence to drive a light transport vehicle. The provi- sions relating to the necessity of having a licence to drive a D ?. vehicle is contained in Sections 3, 4 and 10 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.[Paras 9, 10 and 12] i504-H, 505-A-D, 507-D] National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. 2004 (3) SCC 297; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut 2007 (4) SCALE 36 - relied on. E Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v Meena Variyal and Ors. 2007 (5) SCALE 269; Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brij Mohan and Ors. 2007 (7) SCALE 753; Oriental Insur- t- ance Co. Ltd. v Prithvi Raj 2008 (1) SCALE 727 - referred to. F 2. The deceased was not the owner of any goods which were being carried in the truck. Admitted position is that he had been traveling in the truck for the purpose of collecting the empty boxes. He was a vegetable dealer. He was not traveling in the truck as owner of the goods G viz. the vegetables. He was traveling in the truck for a ~ purpose other than the one for which he was entitled to ' travel in a public carriage goods vehicle. [Para 13] [507- E,F] New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors.2003 H 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A (2) sec 223 - relied on. . ... Prem Kumar and Ors. v. Prahlad Dev and Ors. 2008 (1) SCALE 531; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prithvi Raj 2008 (1) SCALE 727 - referred to. B 3. If the amount deposited by the insurance company has since been withdrawn by the claimant, it would be open to the insurance company to recover the same in _.,. the manner specified by the High Court. But if the same has not been withdrawn, the deposited amount may be c refunded to the insurance company and the proceedings for realization of the amount may be initiated against the owner of the vehicle. [Para 14] [508-C,D] CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CivilAppeal No. 3542 of 2008 D From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.12.2005 of '!-, the High Court of Himacha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.