LexNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SMT. KUSUM RAI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. A. v. SMT. KUSUM RA! AND ORS. MARCH 24, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] B Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss. I 63-A and I 66-Driver having no valid licence-Liability of Insurance c Company-Held, owner of vehicle would be liable, and not the insurance company, to pay the claimed amount-However, on facts, impugned award against Insurance Company not interfered with, but insurer may recover the amount from owner-Constitution of India-Article 136. A taxi, which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, D met with an accident while it was being driven by its Khalasi who had a licence for driving 'Light Motor Vehicle'. In the claim petition filed by heirs of the passenger, in terms ofss. 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, defence of the Insurance Company was that the condition of the Insurance contract was violated as the driver of the taxi did not have a valid - and effective licence. The Tribunal held that the lnusrance Company could E not get rid of its third party liability as the issue of invalid licence would arise only between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. The appeal of the Insurance Company was dismissed by the High Court Aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. The owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a valid licence. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. [393-B; 394-D) G .. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors., [2004) 3 SCC 297 and Malla Prakasarao v. Malla Janaki and Ors., [2004) 3 SCC 343, relied on. - 387 H 388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 3 S.C.R. A New lndiu Assurance Cu .. Shim/av. Kam/a and Urs .. 120011 4 SCC 342 B and National Insurance Company ltd. Chandigarh v . . Vicolletta Rohtagi and Ors., JT (2002) 7 SC 251, cited. National Insurance Corporation ltd. v. Kanti Devi (Mrs.) and Ors., (20051 5 sec 789, referred to. I. 2. However, in the instant case the owner has not appeared. The victim was aged only 12 years. The claimants are from a poor background. They must have suffered great mental agony. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to push them into another round of litigation particularly when it may be C difficult for them to secure the presence of the owner of the vehicle. (394-E] 1.3. Although, the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to pay the claimed amount as the driver was not possessing a valid licence and the High Court was in error in holding otherwise, impugned award is not interfered with, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in D exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India but the appellant may recover the amount from the owner in the same manner as was directed in Nanjappan 's case. 1395-DI E Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan and Urs., 120051 SCC (Cri) 148, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1731/2006. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 26.2.2003 of the Allahabad High Court in FAFO No. 489 of 2003. F Piyush Sharma and Pramod Dayal for the Appellant. G Mohan Pandey, V.N. Pandey and S.S. Bandopadhyay for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. Respondent No. 3 herein is owner of a jeep bearing registration No. BR 03 P 9011. The said vehicle admittedly was being used as a taxi and, thus, a commercial vehicle. One Ram Lal was working as a Khalasi in the said H taxi. He used to drive the said vehicle sometimes. He had a driving licence. - NA T!ONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SMT. KUSUM RA! [S.B. SINHA, J.] 3 89 Driving licence, however, was granted to him for driving a Light Motor A Vehicle. The said taxi met with an accident on 14.8.2000 at about I p.m. as a result whereof a girl aged about 12 years, Km. Anjali Rai, died. On an allegation made in that behalf that the said taxi was being driven rashly and negligently by the aforementioned Ram Lal, a claim petition in terms of Sections 163A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short B "the Act") was filed by the First and the Second Respondents herein. The said taxi admittedly was insured with the Appellant herein. One of the issues raised in the said proceeding was as to whether the driver of the said jeep
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.