NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs KAMAL KAUSHAL & ANOTHER

By means of this appeal the judgment and order dated 27.7.2009 rendered by the Additional District Judge/Learned Tribunal, Dehradun has been assailed, whereby, the award of Rs. 4,32,320/- was passed against the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd.

The incident occurred on 08.10.2005 around 11:15 AM on the Dehradun city roads when the Vikram/tempo UP-07H-9689 was dashed by the Maruti Car HR-03T-4304. Vikram/tempo was being driven by the petitioner Shri Kamal Kaushal @ Kamal Yadav while car was being driven by the opposite party no. 2 Shri Naresh Kumar. Shri Kamal Kaushal was seriously injured inasmuch as he remained hospitalized in the higher center of medical college in Jolly Grant, Dehradun w.e.f. 08.10.2005 to 31.10.2005 as proved by PW2 Mahesh Sharma, an employee of the hospital itself. He lost his right leg, which was amputated by the Jaipur Foot. So, he instituted a claim petition no. 343/2005 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming the compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,50,000/-, but the learned Tribunal has awarded the amount as indicated above.

The learned counsel of the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that the driving license of Shri Kamal Kaushal was valid only w.e.f. 09.7.2002 to 08.7.2005 and thereafter it was further renewed w.e.f. 10.10.2005 onwards viz. the injured Shri Kamal did not have a valid driving license on the date of incident. This Court on the strength of several judgments propounded by the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that in the absence of a valid driving license the award/compensation can not be denied. In this regard, the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 3 SCC 297 observed as under: "Contention 3(c) : Licence held but validity whereof has expired Ss. 14 and 15 A person whose licence is ordinarily renewed in terms of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is a person "duly licensed"., despite the fact that during the interregnum period, namely, when the accident took place and the date of expiry of the licence, he did not have a valid licence, he could, during the prescribed period apply for renewal thereof and could obtain the same automatically without undergoing any further test or without having been declared unqualified therefor. This is possible from a reading together of the provisions in the Act. The proviso appended to Section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the licence remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry. Section 15 of the Act, as it 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 Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. Therefore he cannot be said to be delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry."

The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant has argued that such license could not be renewed on 10.10.2005 because after the expiry of such license on 08.7.2005 Shri Kamal Kaushal was bound to appear before the Transport Authority concerned for undergoing further tests before such renewal.

This Court is not inclined to go into that aspect of the matter because neither the ARTO was summoned nor any appropriate steps were taken on the part of the Insurance Company to get that Authority concerned summoned for cross-examination on this point. PW3- Dr. Vijendra Chauhan has been produced, who has certified the 80% disability of Shri Kamal Kaushal at the end of medical treatment.

It was further argued that since two vehicles were involved in the accident, hence liability could have been apportioned 50-50 percent. Nothing has been pointed out in the evidence, which could reveal that the vikram/tempo was also equally liable for causing this accident.

So, I find there is no force in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. The amount which is lying deposited be returned to the injured petitioner Shri Kamal Kaushal along with the interest it has earned.

Lower court record be sent back.