Hans Raj and anr. Vs. Anil Sachdeva and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order.hemant gupta, j.1. the challenge in the present appeal is to the award rendered by the learned motor accident claims tribunal on 17.11.1984, whereby a sum of rs. 40,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant payable by the present appellants being owner and the driver of the offending vehicle.2. as per the claimant, on 11.9.1982 he met with an accident. he was riding scooter no. hrt 6130 when a blue colour tractor driven by hans raj struck against this scooter. richhpal singh, appellant no. 2 was sitting on the mud guard of the said tractor. in the said accident, the claimant received injuries on his head, right arm, right leg and left foot. there was 40% of the deformity on his right hand on the junction of elbow.3. to prove that the accident has taken place on account of negligent driving of the tractor, the claimant appeared as pw4 and also examined gulshan pw 5 and amarnath pw6. after considering the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, the learned tribunal found that the accident had taken place on account of negligent driving of the tractor by hans raj. it was also found that hans raj, who was driving the tractor at the time of accident was not holding any driving licence. therefore, the insurance company was absolved of the liability to make the payment of compensation.4. the hon'ble supreme court in new india assurance co. shimla v. kamla and ors. : [2001]2scr797 has held that when a valid insurance policy has been issued in respect of a vehicle, the burden is on the insurer to pay to third parties whether or not there has been any breach or violation of the policy conditions. but the amount so paid by the insurer to third parties can be allowed to be recovered from the insured if as per the policy conditions, the insurer had no liability to pay such sum to the insured. the said view was reiterated by the hon'ble supreme court in national insurance company ltd. v. swaran singh and ors. : air2004sc1531 , wherein it was held that the liability of the insurance company is to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner and the driver thereof.5. in view of the above principles of law, the insurance company is liable to make the payment of the amount of compensation to the claimant as the vehicle was insured in terms of insurance policy exhibit r.1. since the driver has admitted that he was not holding a valid driving licence, the insurance company is at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the owner and driver as the case may be. thus, the award of the learned tribunal stands modified to the above extent. however, if the appellants have paid the entire amount of compensation, the same shall be a due satisfaction of the award and the above modification in the award will not be applicable.6. the present appeal is allowed in the above terms.