Skip to content


New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jyotsna Patra and Five ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberM.A.C.A. No. 256 of 2003
Judge
Reported inIV(2005)ACC696; 2005(II)OLR583
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 149(4) and 170
AppellantNew India Assurance Company Ltd.
RespondentJyotsna Patra and Five ors.
Appellant Advocate Kumar Parija, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Sanjeev Udgata and; Pabitra Kumar Nayak, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....memo. law as has been enunciated by the supreme court is well settled that not possessing a valid driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle is a breach of policy conditions and under such eventualities the insurance company should be directed to pay the compensation and should be granted liberty to realize the same from the owner of the offending vehicle......out by the stamp reporter is not removed and as the same is pending for the last two years and the insurance company is saddled with interest, this court with consent of the learned counsel for the parties feels that it would be just and proper to dispose of the same at this stage.2. heard.3. assailing the judgment dated 25.01.2003 passed by the learned addl. district judge-cum-3rd m.a.c.t., rourkela in m.a.c.t. misc. no. 172/77 of 1998/2001, the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal.4. the grounds on which the impugned judgment is challenged are that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence. the second ground is that the interest awarded is towards the higher side and the third ground is that the compensation awarded is excessive, so.....
Judgment:
ORDER

A.S. Naidu, J.

1. This matter was listed for orders to remove the defect as pointed by the Stamp Reporter. The accident took place in the year 1998. The Judgment was passed in the year 2003. The present appeal has been filed in the month of March, 2003, till date defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter is not removed and as the same is pending for the last two years and the Insurance Company is saddled with interest, this Court with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties feels that it would be just and proper to dispose of the same at this stage.

2. Heard.

3. Assailing the Judgment dated 25.01.2003 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T., Rourkela in M.A.C.T. Misc. No. 172/77 of 1998/2001, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal.

4. The grounds on which the impugned Judgment is challenged are that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence. The second ground is that the interest awarded is towards the higher side and the third ground is that the compensation awarded is excessive, So far as the third ground is concerned it appears that no permission was sought for under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as would be evident from the impugned judgment as well as the appeal memo. Thus the Insurance Company is precluded from raising the said point. There is some force in the other two grounds. Law as has been enunciated by the Supreme Court is well settled that not possessing a valid driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle is a breach of policy conditions and under such eventualities the Insurance Company should be directed to pay the compensation and should be granted liberty to realize the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In consonance with the aforesaid directions and the provision of Section 149(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, I direct accordingly.

5. The Tribunal has directed that the petitioner-claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of compensation with effect from 24.4,1998. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court reduces the rate of interest from 9% to 6%.

6. It is submitted that the entire amount awarded has been deposited before this Court. Out of the said amount, the amount awarded with interest accrued thereon at the rate of 6% per annum be calculated and paid to the petitioner-claimants and the balance amount, if any, be returned to the Insurance Company on proper application. The amount already received by the petitioner-claimants, no need to say, shall be adjusted.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //