AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda
The claimants have filed this appeal, inter alia contending that the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation should have fastened liability on the Insurance Company. I have heard Sri Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel for claimants and Sri S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel for Insurance Company.
It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that vehicle involved in the accident is a goods auto carriage. It is a transport vehicle for driving of which an endorsement is required u/s 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
In the case on hand, driving licence was issued on 07.09.1993 and it was renewed from time to time and last renewal was valid up to 28.06.2004. The accident in question took place on 13.04.2006. Therefore, as on the date of accident, driver did not have valid and effective driving licence.
In a decision reported in Ram Babu Tiwari Vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, , the Supreme Court has held:-
It is beyond any doubt or dispute that only in the event an application for renewal of licence is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would be renewed automatically which means that even if an accident had taken place within the aforementioned period, driver may be held to be possessing a valid licence. The proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 15, however, clearly states that the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal in the event the application for renewal of a licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry. It is, therefore, evident that as, on renewal of the licence on such terms, the driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be holding a valid licence, the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured.
The second proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 15 is of no assistance to the appellant. It merely enables the licensing authority to take a further test of competent driving and passing thereof to its satisfaction within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 9. It does not say that the renewal would be automatic. It is, therefore, a case where a breach of the contract of insurance is established. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and Others, , holding :
It has not been disputed before us that the vehicle was being used as a taxi. It was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, thus, was required to hold an appropriate licence therefor. Ram Lal who allegedly was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, as noticed hereinbefore, was holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle only. He did not possess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle. Evidently, therefore, there was a breach of the condition of the contract of insurance. The appellant, therefore, could raise the said defence.
It was further held:
(12) This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, , clearly laid down that the liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis the owner would depend upon several factors. The owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle...
It was opined :
(14) In a case of this nature, therefore, the owner of a vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability to verify the fact as to whether the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid licence or not.
The principle laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and Others, , has been reiterated in Ishwar Chandra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2007 ACJ 1067 (SC), referring to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, this Court stated the law thus :
From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The proviso appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. Accident took place 28.4.1995. As on the said date, renewal application had not been filed, the driver did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident.
In view of what has been held in the aforestated judgment, contention of claimants that the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation should have fastened liability on the Insurance Company, notwithstanding the fact that claimant/driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle cannot be accepted. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.