AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUNIL GAUR , JÂ Â Â Â Â
In a vehicular accident, which took place on 23rd March, 2010, Munna @ Daud, s/o Ramajan Ali and Azad Khan s/o Munshi Khan, were
grievously injured and they had sought compensation on account of injuries suffered by them. Vide separate Awards of even date i.e. of 2nd January,
2013, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as the “Tribunalâ€), granted compensation of `5,85,200/- with interest @7.5% to
injured Munna @ Daud and compensation of `1,26,031/- with interest @7.5% p.a. to injured Azad Khan while holding appellant-Insurer liable to pay
the awarded compensation. Â
In the above captioned two appeals, the challenge is to the aforesaid impugned Awards on the liability aspect only, therefore, the facts of this case
and the breakup of compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, need not be adverted to. The driver and owner of vehicle in question had neither
contested before the Tribunal nor has before this Court. Since these appeals arise out of one accident, therefore, with the consent of counsel for
appellant, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.Â
Counsel for appellant-Insurer assails the impugned Awards on the ground that the Tribunal has saddled Insurer with the liability to pay the awarded
compensation on the ground that Notice under Order XII, Rule 8 CPC was not issued to driver and owner of the insured vehicle. It is pointed out by
counsel for Insurer that witness from the concerned Licensing Authority had come forward to prove that one of the driving licenses of the driver of
insured vehicle was found to be fake and other driving license was for light motor vehicles (NT) and motor cycle only. It is pointed out that license for
light motor vehicle was specifically made for Non Transport Vehicles, whereas driver of the insured vehicle was driving a light goods vehicle, which
had met with the accident. It is further pointed out by learned counsel for Insurer that the Tribunal has erred in distinguishing Supreme Court’s
decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & ors. (2009) 11 SCC 356, wherein it has been clearly declared that if the driver does not hold
a valid and effective license for driving a goods vehicle, then it tantamounts to breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy and so, recovery
rights were granted to the Insurer. Thus, it is submitted that in light of Supreme Court’s decision in Angad Kol (Supra), recovery rights ought to be
granted to Insurer.
Upon hearing and on perusal of evidence on record and the decision cited, I find that Supreme Court in Angad Kol (Supra) has categorically
declared that recovery rights ought to be granted, if driver of the insured vehicle does not hold valid and effective driving license to drive the goods
vehicle. The Tribunal has erred in distinguishing the Supreme Court’s decision in Angad Kol (Supra). Accordingly, impugned Awards are
modified to the extent that the liability to pay the compensation is of the driver and owner of the insured vehicle. It is brought to the notice of this Court
that the awarded compensation has been already disbursed to the Injured persons. Resultantly, recovery rights are granted to appellant-Insurer to
recover the awarded amount with interest from the owner and driver of insured vehicle in question.
With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two appeals are disposed of. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant-Insurer. Â