1996 ACJ 613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
(F.A. No. 1488 of 1982; decided on 23.6.1995)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE A.N DIVECHA
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant
V.
Desal Babarbhai Manekial and others ...Respondents
Important point:
Licence- Driver did not produce driving licence despite notice served on him by the insurance company- adverse inference could be drawn against the driver and insurance company not liable- Held: no; claimant was not responsible for non-production of the driving licence by the driver
JUDGMENT
A.N. Divecha, J.-The judgment and the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana, on 21.12.1981 in M.A.C. Petition No.320 of 1979 is under challenge in this appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehic/es Act, 1939 ('the Act' for brief) at the instance of the insurance company.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal need not elaborately be set out. It may be sufficient to observe that the respondent No.1 herein filed the claim petition for compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,999/- with respect to injuries suffered by his buffaloes on account of an accident caused by one truck bearing R.T.O. registration No. RJT 4445 ('the truck' for convenience) driven by respondent No.3 herein and owned by respondent No.2 herein at the relevant time. That claim petition was partly accepted and an amount of Rs. 3,700/- came to be awarded to respondent No.1 herein by the Tribunal by its judgment and award passed on 21.12.1981 in the aforesaid claim petition. That has aggrieved the insurance company. It has, therefore, preferred this appeal under section 110-D of the Act for questioning the correctness of the judgment and the award made by the Tribunal.
3. Mr. Nanavati for the appellant has urged that the insurance company was absolved from its liability to answer the claim on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid licence. As transpiring from para 6 of the judgment, the driver had appeared through his advocate, Mr. R.R. Mansuri. The insurance company has served to him a notice for production of the driving licence. Mr. Mansuri for the driver agreed to produce the driving licence. The driving licence, however, was not produced either by the driver or by his advocate on his behalf. Relying on this fact situation, Mr. P.V. Nanavati for the appellant has urged that an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the driver of the truck to the effect that he was not holding any valid licence at the relevant time. If he was holding any licence at the relevant time, runs the submission of Mr. Nanavati for the appellant, the driver of the truck would certainly have produced it before the Tribunal.
4. I think the Tribunal's approach to this problem does not suffer from any infirmity. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant was not responsible for the non-production of the driving licence by the driver of the truck. The claimant cannot and need not be denied his due compensation on the ground of non-production of the driving licence. The Tribunal has protected the interest of the insurance company by observing that it can lay its claim against the driver and his owner on the basis of such adverse inference arising from non-production of the driving licence.
5.The appellant insurance company might not, however, be justified in denying the claim of the claimant on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid licence. The reason therefor is quite simple. The relevant term in the insurance policy with respect to the driver, inter alia, required him to hold valid licence. There was, however, further proviso therein to the effect that even if the driver was not holding a licence, the risk would be covered unless the driver was not qualified to hold or to obtain a licence. In that view of the matter, non-holding of a valid licence by the driver by itself would not result in denial to the claimant his due compensation from the driver and the owner and consequently from the insurance company. A person may be disqualified to hold or to obtain a licence for diverse reasons. He might be under-aged for obtaining a licence. His poor eye-sight or vision might also deprive him of obtaining a licence. He might not be in a fit state of physique and that might disqualify him for holding a licence. It would obviously be for the insurance company to establish at the trial that the driver was not qualified to hold or to obtain a licence in view of the aforesaid proviso contained in the insurance policy.
6.In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability to answer the claim on the appellant insurance company.
7.In view of my aforesaid discussion, I find no merit or substance in this appeal. The judgment and the award under challenge in this appeal call for no interference by this court on the ground urged before me by and on behalf of the appellant.
8.In the result, this appeal fails. It is hereby dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
613_1996 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.Desai Babarbhai
No comments:
Post a Comment