Judgment:
FAO-2349-2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2349-2012 (O&M) (MACt case No.85-MACT of 2010) Date of decision:
11. 2.2014 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Raj Bala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: None for the appellant None for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Mr.Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.6 **** Jitendra Chauhan, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (in short 'the Tribunal'), dated 28.10.2011, vide which, a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- has been awarded to the claimants, as compensation.
2. It has been averred in the grounds of appeal that the driving licence held by the driver was not valid for driving the commercial vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the driver- cum- owner submits that the driving licence held by the driver was valid Shanker Gauri 2014.02.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO-2349-2012 (O&M) 2 and effective for driving the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured at the time of the accident, therefore, the Insurance company cannot avoid from its liability.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully.
5. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:- 3.Necessity for driving licence .- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [ other than a motor cab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 ]. unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
6. In the present case, the driver of the offending was having a licence for LMV, whereas the offending vehicle was a Mahindra Pick up, which is a commercial vehicle and therefore, to drive the same, the necessary endorsement is required as per the provision of the Act, which was not made on the licence at the time of accident. Thus, the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, which is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is absolved from its liability, and Shanker Gauri 2014.02.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO-2349-2012 (O&M) 3 the owner and the driver of the offending is held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. However in view of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and others 2004 ACJ2094the insurance company is given right firstly to pay the compensation and then recover from the owner and the driver of the offending vehicles.
7. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. 11.2.2014 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE Shanker Gauri 2014.02.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh