AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1,Loss of future income :,"Rs. 60,000/-
2,Medical expenses :,"Rs. 50,000/-
3,Pain and sufferings :,"Rs. 50,000/-
4,Loss of amenities in life :,"Rs. 50,000/-
,Total :,"Rs. 2,10,000/-
was ineffective and invalid.,,
The essence of the principle of law in this regard is that the breach must have been committed by the insured person, that is, if the insured",,
hands over his vehicle to a person who is not duly licensed to drive a vehicle, the insurer would not be liable to satisfy a claim arising out of such a",,
accident.,,
In the case on hand, the accident had occurred on 26-5-2007. The driver of the vehicle, Sukhdev Singh, herein respondent No.3, in his",,
deposition as insurer's witness before the learned Tribunal has clearly stated that driving license was issued in his favour on 19-9-2008, which",,
authorizes him to drive a light motor vehicle and a motor cycle. He produced a copy of his driving license (Mark-A) showing that the same was,,
issued on 19-9-2008. He did not state before the Tribunal that he possessed any driving license as on the date of accident. The statement of,,
respondent No.3 is sufficient to prove that he did not possess any driving license as at the time of the accident. Learned Tribunal, however, did not",,
accord much importance to this aspect of the matter and fastened liability on the insurance company only for the reason that vehicle was insured by,,
it.,,
Admitted case of both sides is that the offending vehicle as at the time of accident was registered in the name of Sanjay Mehta, herein",,
respondent No.2 who was respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal too. Admittedly respondent No. 2 was the person insured under the,,
policy. The question, thus, arising is whether the appellant company is not liable to satisfy the award as vehicle at the relevant time was being driven",,
by a person who did not possess any driving license?,,
The deposition of the driver of the vehicle before the Tribunal would show that neither he was engaged as driver by the insured (owner) nor,,
was the vehicle handed over to him by the insured. This is evident from the statement of the claimant also. According to the claimant the offending,,
vehicle was provided to him by his client, the owner of 'Jamkash Motors'. The driver in his statement has stated that he had taken the claimant to a",,
Court at Samba for attending a case of his company, namely, 'Jamkash Vehicleads'. He has further stated that the offending vehicle is owned by",,
the 'Jamkash Vehicleads' and he had taken the claimant in this vehicle under the direction of the owner.,,
What is, thus, clear is that the driver, who caused the accident, was not engaged by the insured (owner). On the other hand, he was engaged",,
by a third person, namely, 'Jamkash Vehicleads'. RW-Deepak Gupta, who is an officer of the company, in his deposition before the Tribunal has",,
revealed that the offending vehicle was sold by the registered owner (insured) to Jamkash Vehicleads on 14-6-2007. He also produced a copy of,,
Sale Deed in this regard. This aspect of the case, however, was neither raised in the objections filed by the insurer/appellant before the Tribunal",,
nor has been proved by the appellant by leading legal evidence so its effect on the liability of the appellant would not arise for consideration. The,,
simple defence taken by the appellant in its objections before the learned Tribunal and in this appeal is that there had been a breach of policy of,,
insurance as the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time was not holding a valid and effective driving license. This defence, however, fails",,
as no breach of the condition of the policy of insurance by the insured has been proved. Insurer cannot escape liability merely by proving that the,,
driver of the offending vehicle did not possess driving licence as it is required to prove also that such a driver was wilfully and consciously engaged,,
by the insured.,,
The other ground relates to quantum of compensation. It was argued by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, that the learned Tribunal",,
has assumed Rs.10,000/- as claimant's monthly income without any evidence and compensation for medical expenses has been awarded without",,
any evidence and compensation for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities has been awarded on the higher side.,,
On analysing the evidence, I find no substance in the contention that income of the claimant has been taken on the higher side or the",,
compensation on account of future loss of income is on higher side. Compensation for medical treatment, however, has been awarded beyond and",,
contrary to the evidence as bills valuing Rs. 22,380/- only were produced by the claimant to which only a nominal addition towards cost of",,
attendance could have been made. Having regard to the nature of the injury and extent of disability, the compensation for pain and sufferings and",,
loss of amenities also is on the higher side and deserves scaling down.,,
Viewed thus, this appeal is partially allowed by reducing compensation for medical expenses, pain and sufferings and loss of amenities from Rs.",,
50,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- each. The amount of compensation is, thus, reduced from Rs. 2,10,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Other conditions shall",,
prevail.,,
The award amount, if deposited in this Court, be released in favour of the claimant, subject to above modification and excess amount be",,
remitted back to the depositor.,,
Record of the Tribunal be remitted back along with a copy of this judgment.,,