Ramtej Singh & Anr. v. Satish Kumar & Ors.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the appellants in FAO No.2405 of 2009. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Mr. Neeraj Khanna and Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocates for the Insurance Company. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment of mine shall dispose of four connected appeal Nos. 2405, 1069, 761 and 758 of 2009, filed against the award dated

27.11.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation as under :- F.A.O. No. 2405 of 2009, F.A.O. No. 1069 of 2009, F.A.O. No. 761 of 2009 & F.A.O. No. 758 of 2009 -2- MACT No.176T of 24.4.2004/20.6.2006, Ramtej Singh and another vs. Satish Kumar and others. Ramtej Singh (Claimant No.1) Gurpreet Kaur (Claimant No.2) : : Rs.2,10,200/- Rs.1,00,000/- MACT No.175T of 20.4.2004/20.6.2006, Chhinderpal Kaur vs. Satish Kumar and others Rs.25,220/- MACT No.174T of 30.7.2004/20.6.2006, Joginder Kaur vs. Satish Kumar and others Rs.2,88,000/- The claimants were also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the award amount. It was further made clear that the amount, if any, paid earlier under no fault liability would be adjusted. On 9.2.2004, the claimants were coming to village Ghorenab from Samana in a Mohindra Jeep bearing registration No.HR-23-2408 along with Baljit Kaur wife of Chhota Singh, Bhagat Singh, Jit Singh and Chhinderpal Kaur. The jeep was at normal speed. In the meantime, the respondent No.2 (respondent No.1 in the claim petition) while driving Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR-26-J-9278 rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and hit against the said jeep, as a result of which all the occupants of the jeep sustained injuries. Kuljit Singh driver of the jeep died at the spot, whereas, Baljeet Kaur died on the way to the hospital and the other occupants also suffered injuries. The legal heirs of Baljeet Kaur namely Ramtej Singh and others preferred the claim petition seeking compensation. The respondents No.1 to 3 contested the claim petitions while denying the allegations. They further took the plea that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. The respondent No.2 also denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo in question. F.A.O. No. 2405 of 2009, F.A.O. No. 1069 of 2009, F.A.O. No. 761 of 2009 & F.A.O. No. 758 of 2009 -3- The respondent No.5 denied if claimants were dependents upon the deceased. The respondent No.6- Insurance Company of Mohindera Jeep took the preliminary objection that the driver of the Tata Sumo was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether Baljit Kaur died on 9.2.2004 at 6.45 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-26J- 9278 by respondent No.1?OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled for and from whom?OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?OPR6-7

4. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. Not much has been argued to challenge the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No.1 and 2, yet, having gone through the evidence of Ramtej Singh (PW1), Bhagat Singh (PW2) and other evidence on record, it stands amply established that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, who had fled away from the spot. The case was reported to the police against him and he was prosecuted for the offence. No plausible defence has been led to disprove to contentions. With regard to the findings returned on issue No.2, only Ramtej Singh and Gurpreet Kaur have sought enhancement of compensation from Rs.3,10,200/- to more by way of filing FAO No.2405 of 2009. Having peeped into the facts and evidence of the case in hand, the compensation awarded appears to be inadequate. The deceased was 38 years old. Though she was a house wife, yet, the Tribunal fell in error while assessing and evaluating her services as house wife and did not apply the proper multiplier. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed for awarding compensation to the claimants keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298. F.A.O. No. 2405 of 2009, F.A.O. No. 1069 of 2009, F.A.O. No. 761 of 2009 & F.A.O. No. 758 of 2009 -4- Having pondered over this contention and keeping in view the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month, out of which she must be spending 1/3 upon herself, her annual income comes to Rs.24,000/-. As such, while applying the multiplier of 15, her contribution towards the family comes to Rs.3,60,000/-. As such, the claimants would be entitled to enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The Insurance Company by way of its appeals, has challenged the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.3 while contending that the respondent No.2 and owner of the vehicle has committed the breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance as the respondent No.2 was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident i.e. 9.2.2004. To buttress this argument, he has brought to my notice that as per Sampuran Singh (RW3) Clerk of the office of the Licencing Authority, the respondent No.2 was holding a driving licence w.e.f. 2.7.2001 to 6.2.2004 and thereafter it was renewed from 17.5.2004 to 16.5.2006. It is contended that accident took place on 9.2.2004, whereas the tenure of the licence had expired on 6.2.2004, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimants. The driver and the insurer could be held liable. While delving deep into controversy the significant question which has arisen is whether the licence which could not be renewed within thirty days of its expire was sufficient to exonerate the company from its liability? Admittedly, the respondent No.2 was issued licence from

2.7.2001 to 6.2.2004 and thereafter it was renewed w.e.f. 17.5.2004 to

16.5.2006. Proviso to Section 14 of the Act provides that every driving licence shall remain effective for a period of 30 days from its expiry. Necessary portion of the Section is reproduced as under :- “14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles - (1) (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act F.A.O. No. 2405 of 2009, F.A.O. No. 1069 of 2009, F.A.O. No. 761 of 2009 & F.A.O. No. 758 of 2009 shall :- -5- (a) (b) in the case of any other licence :- (i) (ii) Provided every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.” Again, the renewal of licence is governed by Section 15 of the Act, which reads as under :- “15. Renewal of driving licences - (1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry; Provided that in any case where the application for renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal: (2) to (6) xx” From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The proviso appended to Section 15 (1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The accident took place on 9.2.2004. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that since on the said date, the renewal application had not been filed, therefore, the driver would be treated to have no valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident. But, the said contention is not accepted. On conjunctive reading of Section 14 (1) and 15 (1) of the Act such driver cannot be said to have no driving licence F.A.O. No. 2405 of 2009, F.A.O. No. 1069 of 2009, F.A.O. No. 761 of 2009 & F.A.O. No. 758 of 2009 -6- or invalid licence. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Ishwar Chandra and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 650. It has been observed in case National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 as under :- “Section 15 of the Act does not empower the authorities to reject an application for renewal only on the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantime the provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in Section 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the period to get his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he cannot be said to be delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry.” The present case is of similar nature. The respondent No.2 had a valid driving licence w.e.f. 7.2.2001 to 6.2.2004 and thereafter his licence was renewed w.e.f. 17.5.2004 to 16.5.2006. Thus, his licence remained valid for 30 days after the expiry of the period of licence i.e. up to 6.3.2004. However, the accident in this case took place on 9.2.2004, therefore, the respondent No.2 cannot be delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of 30 days i.e. up to 6.3.2004. The appellant cannot get benefit of the period which was given to the driver to apply for its renewal. While taking the case from another angle, it was only three months pause during which the licence could not be renewed. Be that it may, the licence was renewed w.e.f. 17.5.2004 but the company has not led any evidence in order to establish when the driver had applied for the driving licence. Had the respondent not got renewed the licence at all after

6.2.2004, or there would have been much gap i.e. for an year or so when the licence was got renewed then the company could take this plea that the respondent No.2 had no valid driving licence but it was only three months period which the transport authorities normally take before its renewal. F.A.O. No. 2405 of 2009, F.A.O. No. 1069 of 2009, F.A.O. No. 761 of 2009 & F.A.O. No. 758 of 2009 -7- Such time is ordinarily consumed in completing the formalities. In any case, on account of renewal of licence on 17.5.2004, the court could not presume that he had applied for the renewal of the licence on that very day in the absence of proof of any date when the respondent No.2 had applied for the renewal of the licence, it would be presumed that the respondent No.2 had applied within time for renewal of the same. While taking the case from another angle, when the respondent- owner knew that the driver was having a valid driving licence then he could not be presumed to force the respondent No.2 to get it renewed within time and also he could not compel the authorities that he would not hand over the vehicle to the respondent No.2 unless his driving licence is renewed. Such was never the intention of the legislature as that would be detrimental to the interest of the owner who has already having a licenced driver. It may further be observed that the owner once employed a trained driver having a valid licence cannot be presumed to know that his driver had not applied for renewal of the said licence. Thus, while taking the case from all angles, it would be held that the owner/insured had not committed any violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. As such, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.3 stand affirmed. No other point has been argued. Resultantly, all the three appeals filed by the Insurance Company i.e. FAO Nos. 1069, 761 and 758 of 2009 are dismissed. However, appeal filed by Ramtej Singh and another (FAO No.2405 of 2009) is partly accepted and the compensation qua the claimants is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- over and above the award amount along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. August 19, 2010 deepak (A.N. Jindal) Judge