The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 08. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3123 of 2017 D.M., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Nityananda Sahoo -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. P. K. Mohanty, Adv. …. Opposite Party Mr. A. K. Mohanty, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 21.03.2024 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the award dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) Dhenkanal-Angul-At Dhenkanal in PLA Case No.7 of 2013 directing the Petitioner/Insurance Company to pay Rs.33,000/- (Rs.28,000/- toward damage of motor Cycle + Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony etc and litigation expenses) to the Opposite Party within two months from date of that order failing which the amount would carry simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of that order. Page 1 of 6 // 2 // 3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the Opposite Party is the registered owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.OR-05-AF-7750 which was insured with the present Petitioner/Insurance Company with validity from 12.08.2011 to 11.08.2012. On 28.03.2012, the said insured Motorcycle was damaged in an accident with one Maruti van bearing registration No.OR-AK-9329. As a result of which the Opposite Party sustained injuries and the motorcycle was damaged. The Opposite Party lodged an F.I.R based upon which a police case was registered and the damaged vehicle was also seized by the police. Thereafter, on 29.03.2012, the Opposite Party lodged claim application before the present Petitioner/Insurance Company to indemnify the damages caused to the motorcycle. On 01.11.2012 the Opposite Party received intimation that his claim has been repudiated by the present Petitioner/Insurance Company on the ground that the Opposite Party was not having valid driving license to ride the motorcycle at the time of accident. 5. Thereafter, the present Opposite Party filed P.L.A Case No.7 of 2013 dated 30.05.2013 before the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) Dhenkanal-Angul-At Dhenkanal for Page 2 of 6 // 3 // conciliation and settlement of his grievance. When the conciliation was failed, the matter was proceeded for adjudication on merit. The present Petitioner had filed a show cause in the aforesaid claim petition. The Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) Dhenkanal-Angul-At Dhenkanal vide order/award dated 16.12.2016 directed the present Petitioner/Insurance Company to pay Rs.33,000/- to the present Opposite Party within a period of two months, failing which the amount shall carry 7% interest per annum from the date of order till the amount is actually paid. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner/Insurance Company has filed this Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company, during course of hearing, brings to the notice of this Court to the Provision under Section 3 in Chapter II and Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 3 in Chapter II prescribes necessity for driving a license which reads as follows:- “12. Section 3 in Chapter II of the MV Act prescribes necessity for driving licence which reads as under: "3. Necessity for driving licence. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless 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 Page 3 of 6 // 4 // cab "[or motor cycle] 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 to do so. (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." 7. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes forms and contents of the licences to drive which reads as follows:- “14. Section 10 prescribes forms and contents of the licences to drive which reads as under: "Form and contents of licences to drive. (1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; **[(e) transport vehicle; (f)-(h) (i) road roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description." Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company also relies on the Judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Zaharulnisha & Others: 1 wherein at Paragraphs 18 and 21 it has been stated as follows. interpretation “18. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh has extensively dealt with the meaning, application and of various provisions, including Sections 3(2), 4(3), 10(2) and 149 of the MV Act. In para 47 of the judgment, the learned Judges have held that if a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. As for example, when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle he can drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that he must have driving licence both for car and jeep separately. In para 48, it is held as under: (SCC pp. 324-25)” XXXX “21. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by for 1 (2008) 12 SCC 385 Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing a driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving a totally different class of vehicle, which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act.” 9. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the Petitioner/Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant for the road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Motorcycle, who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the Motorcycle on the day of accident. The Motorcyclist was possessing a driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving a totally different class of vehicle, which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act. 10. In such view of the matter, the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Dhenkanal- Angul-At Dhenkanal in PLA Case No.7/2013 is set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of being allowed. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Sumitra Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa,Cuttack Date: 02-Apr-2024 10:58:27 Page 6 of 6