Partha Pratim Bhattacharjee vs Suku Debbarma And Ors

[1] This appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle which was involved in an accident giving rise to Case No. T.S.(MAC) 430 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala rendered in its impugned award dated 27.05.2016.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

On 20.08.2012 at about 4 p.m. one Pabitra Debbarma was travelling in a truck bearing registration No.NL-01K-1263 as an assistant. The deceased fell down from the truck and received fatal injuries. His dependents, therefore, filed a claim petition seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. According to them, the accident was caused on account of negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the truck. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.13,90,000/- in favour of the claimants. However, the Tribunal absolved the insurance company from its liability to pay this compensation on the ground that the driver of the truck did not have a valid licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle. The conclusions of the Tribunal in this respect read as under :

"19. Now, it is to be determined who will pay the amount of compensation. At the time of argument Ld. Counsel for OP No2 makes his submission that driving license of the driver as exhibited by the Owner, OPW No1, is for driving a LMV but offending vehicle is a truck bearing no NL-01K-1263 i.e. in HGV. So he submits that there is violation of the terms of the policy and in such a situation Insurance Co. cannot be asked for indemnify. On the other hand, no cogent reply was given from the side of OP No1. From the policy of insurance it appears that the offending vehicle were insured with the O.P. No.2 the New India Assurance Company Ltd, Agartala having its Divisional Office at Agartala, Mantribari road, under West Agartala P.S. covering the date of accident. The O.P-owner namely Sri Partha Pratim Bhattacherjee has deposed as OPW.1 and besides his oral evidence he also exhibited some documents relating to his vehicle viz. Original registration certificate of vehicle bearing No. NL-01-K1263(Truck) Insurance Policy, and driving licence of Mitan Dey, on identification all these documents were marked as Ext. A, B and C series respectively. On the perusal of the exhibited driving license it appears that driver was authorized to drive only LMV. So, I find that there is violation of the terms of policy and in such a situation Insurance Company is not liable to pay the awarded amount. Therefore, O.P. No.1, the owner, shall pay the amount of compensation. Accordingly, issue No.2 is decided."

[3] This award the owner of the vehicle has challenged in the present appeal. Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence. Though it was a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, nevertheless it authorized the driver to drive a transport vehicle also. With amendments in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the distinction between light motor vehicle and heavy vehicle has been obliterated. Counsel referred to the decision of this Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Haradhan Das and others reported in (2019) 2 TLR 13 and of the Supreme Court in case of Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 and in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 464 to contend that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in absolving the insurance company of its liability to satisfy the award.

[4] On the other hand, Mr. A. Gan Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company opposed the appeal contending that the driver had a licence to drive a light motor vehicle of non-transport category. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, committed no error. The decisions cited by the counsel for the appellant would not apply in the present case.

[5] The licence held by the driver of the truck was produced before the Claims Tribunal. This licence authorized the holder to drive a light motor vehicle for non-transport. Clearly thus the licence was for non-transport vehicles. Additionally, the licence authorized the holder to drive a light motor vehicle. The vehicle involved in the accident was a heavy motor vehicle and a goods carriage vehicle. The decisions cited by the counsel for the appellant, therefore, would not apply to the facts of the present case. The Claims Tribunal, in my opinion, committed no error in absolving the insurance company of its liability to satisfy the award.

[6] In the result, the appeal, is therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Records may be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal.