AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil
This appeal by the Insurer is directed against the judgment and award dated 23th August 2007, passed in MVC No. 8669/2006, by the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-15), (for short. Tribunal''), to set aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, on the ground that the rider of the vehicle did not possess an effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident. The facts in brief are that, the injured claimant bad filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 12:30 P.M. on 19-12-2006, she met with an accident, when she was crossing the Vasanthapura Main Road at Sharadanagar, on account of rash and negligent driving by the rider of Bajaj Scooter bearing No. KA-05/J-2254. Due to the impact, she sustained severe injuries and was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, where she underwent an operation with internal fixation.
On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 03.00 lakhs against the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 28th August, 2007. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directed the Insurer to satisfy the award. Being aggrieved by the liability fastened, on the ground that the rider of the Scooter did not possess a valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking to set aside the same.
I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal filed by Insurer and heard the learned counsel appearing for insurer as well as claimant and also perused the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, at the outset submitted that, the subject matter involved in this appeal is directly covered by the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Kusum Lata and Others Vs. Satbir and Others, and also in the case of Jawahar Singh Vs. Bala Jain and Others, , wherein the Apex Court has consistently held that if there is any dispute regarding the validity of Driving Licence, the Insurer is first liable to satisfy the award and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, does not dispute the settled position that, wherever there is a dispute regarding the validity of the Driving Licence, the Insurer has to first satisfy the award and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that, in the case of Kusum Lata and Others Vs. Satbir and Others, , relying upon various judgments including Saria Verma''s case, the Apex Court has held that, if there is any dispute with regard to the validity of the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, then, the Insurance Company may be directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimant/s and then recover the same from the owner of the said vehicle. The relevant paragraph is extracted as below:
In respect of the dispute about licence, the Tribunal has held and, in our view rightly. that the insurance company has to pay and then may recover it from the owner of vehicle. This court is affirming that direction in view of the principles laid down by a three-Judge Bench of this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC).
(emphasis supplied)
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by Insurer is disposed of.
The impugned judgment and award dated 28th August 2007, passed in MVC No. 8669/2006, by the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-15), is hereby modified.
The Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
The Insurer is reserved liberty to recover the compensation paid by it from the owner of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law, if it so desires.
The amount in deposit by the Insurer is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Office to draw award, accordingly.