Satyendra Singh vs Deveshwari Devi & Others

All these three appeals titled above have arisen out of the same accident hence, are being taken up together for adjudication.

Accident occurred on 25.7.2012 with the vehicle Maxi Cab bearing no. UA15-2573 in the hilly tardy serpentine roads of District Pauri Garhwal, when such vehicle was going from Bironkhal market in the Tehsil Dhumakot, due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, it fell down in the deep gorge around 8:30 AM causing the death of three persons.

The three petitions bearing nos. MACP 70/2012, 71/2012 & 69/2012 were filed by the dependants. MACP 70/2012 was filed for the death of Mr. Mahavir Singh and the learned Tribunal vide its impugned judgment has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,92,792/-. The Insurance Company of such vehicle was asked to satisfy the award but the recovery rights have been conferred to the insurer against the appellants herein.

MACP 71/2012 was preferred for the death of Shri Anand Lal. The dependants have been awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- and third petition no. 69/2012 was filed for the death of Shri Anoop Singh. The dependants have been awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The insurer has been asked to satisfy the award in all the matters but with the recovery rights against the appellant herein who have preferred the respective appeals against the finding of the learned Tribunal conferring such recovery rights.

It is pertinent to mention that accident, losing of the life as well as the insurance cover has not been disputed and the court has been apprised that the respondent-Insurance Company has satisfied the award as granted by the Tribunal but appellant herein, feeling aggrieved against the recovery rights so conferred on the insurer has come up by way of preferring all the three appeals titled above.

It is relevant to note that such Maxi Cab was owned by Shri Satyendra Singh but he sold such vehicle to Shri Harish Chandra on 11.11.2009 for the total consideration of Rs. 2,60,000/-, whereagainst Rs. 1,80,000/- was paid in cash on the same day and Rs. 80,000/- were agreed to be paid by 14.11.2009.

True, that such vehicle could not be mutated in the concerning ownership papers with the Registering Authority. So, the fact remains that it remained continuously registered in the name of Shri Satyendra Singh but, infact it has been transferred to Shri Harish Chandra and this subsequent owner was managing to ply this vehicle on the hilly roads.

Learned counsel of the respondent has argued that no information of such transfer was ever given to the Insurance Company hence, the right of recovery has been correctly conferred by the learned Tribunal.

I think the law in such an eventuality has been made clear by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Pushpa @ Leela & Others vs. Shakuntala & Others reported in (2011) 2 SCC Page 240. The law was laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the identical situation where a vehicle was transferred and the transferee continued to insure the same in the name of transferer and at the time of accident the vehicle was duly insured then it was held that although the transferer continued to be the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of 1988 M.V. Act (even though under civil law he ceased to be owner after sale) and thus was equally liable for payment of compensation. However, since the insurance policy in respect of ill fated vehicle was taken out in the name of transferer (as he was still recorded owner) by the transferee then transferer was indemnified and the liability should be shifted to the insurer. This way the Insurance Company was directed to

pay the compensation as determined by the Tribunal and no recovery rights can be given to the Insurance Company against the transferer.

The learned counsel of the respondent has also raised the issue of the driving licence with the submission that deceased who lost his life in the accident possessed only the driving licence making him entitled to drive light motor vehicle while this Maxi Cab is a commercial transport vehicle.

I think such position is made clear by the three Judge Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Others, reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297. In such matter, the eventuality, when the driver did not held the driving licence for the type of vehicle which he was driving, was dealt with. It was held:-

"If a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. As for example, when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle, he can drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that he must have driving licence both for car and jeep separately. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing the requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability

merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence."

In view of what has been set forth above, all the appeals are hereby allowed. Liability is fastened on the Insurance Company. Compulsory statutory deposit shall be returned to him.