1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1713 of 1999. Dan Singh son of Shri Kishan Das Pujari VERSUS Ghanshyam son of Shri Narayan Sharma & Others Date of Order :::: 12/11/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, Counsel for the claimant-appellant Mr. R.K. Sharma and Mr. D.K. Sharma, Counsel for the Respondents *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the award of the learned Tribunal. This miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the claimant-injured claiming therein an amount of Rs.1,59,000/-, as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road accident, involving the truck owned by the owner, driver and insurer (respondents) bearing registration No.RNG 1613. The claimant-appellant had also claimed the damages to the Tractor, which was owned by him and was 2 damaged in the said accident. The submission of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant is that the learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance company – respondent No.4 of its liability on the ground that the driver of the truck did not possess a valid driving license. Learned counsel further submits that in any event, so far as the claim is concerned, the Motor Vehicles Act, being a benefitial legislation for the purposes of the persons, who suffered injuries or death in any road accident, it is a litigation, which is thrust upon them without their choice, hence, the interpretation, which is beneficial and in favour of the claimant must be adopted so that the object of the legislation can be achieved. Learned counsel submitted, on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, reported in (2004) 3 S.C.C. Page 297 that so far as the claimant is concerned, the insurance company, notwithstanding its defences under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be made liable to pay the amount with the right to recover the same from the owner-injured, as held in the aforesaid case in Para 110 (x). Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant-appellant had purchased the tractor, in question and 3 was its owner and, therefore, with regard to the damage caused to the tractor owned by the appellant, the appellant 's claim based upon the aforesaid, the damages ought to have been allowed as damage to property. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and contended that in the instant case the driver of the vehicle (Truck) No.RNG 1613 did not possess the valid driving license on the date of the accident and his license had expired on 20.04.1995, whereas the accident had occurred on 29.12.1995. He submits that the license had subsequently been renewed with effect from 04.01.1996, but this would be of no avail as it was renewed after the grace period of 30-days. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that so far as the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh (supra) is concerned, in the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken into consideration the provisions of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provided the grace period of 30-days from the date of expiry of its license, which is not so in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that so far as the claim based on the damages to the tractor is concerned, the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding filing of an application for 4 compensation on account of accident caused by use of motor vehicle under Clause (b), the claim can be maintained by the owner of the property in respect of damage to the property, which in this case is a motor vehicle and the same must be seen in that light. Learned counsel submits that the word “owner” as has been defined under Section 2 Clause 30, reads as follows : “Owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle, which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;” . Based upon the above definition, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the claimant- appellant was not the owner of the vehicle (tractor), as the same did not stand registered in his name, but was still in the name of the previous registered owner i.e. Prabhati Lal from whom the claimant appellant claims to have purchased the vehicle. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. So far as the claim in respect of the damages to the tractor, in question is concerned, the contention of the learned 5 counsel for the respondent deserves to be upheld. Under Section 166 Clause (b) of the Act the claim with regard to damage the property can only be maintained by the owner of the property. The word “owner” having been defined under Section 2 Clause 30 of the Act and the property, in question is also a motor vehicle, as the claims to damage to the property is in respect of tractor, which is a motor vehicle, as per the definition of owner in the Act, it is only the registered owner of such motor vehicle, who could have maintained the claim on account of damages to the motor vehicle caused in any road accident, involving the use of another motor vehicle. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant with regard to his claim for damages to the tractor cannot be allowed at the instance of the appellant and have rightly been refused by the learned Tribunal. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant regarding the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation on account of the injuries suffered is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (supra) in Paras 45 and 46 has held the insurance company liable only if the accident occurs during the grace period available under Section 14 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 6 which provides for allowing a period of 30-days to get the license renewed and having held that for the aforesaid period of 30-days the license shall be deemed to remain valid. This is not so in the instant case as such this judgment in Swaran Singh's case is of no help to the appellant. However, so far as the second limb of the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant is concerned, based upon the summary of the findings in Para 110 Clause (x) the same deserves to be accepted. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held in Para 110 (x), as follows : “Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149 (2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts, which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears 7 of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal”. (Emphasised supplied) In this view of the matter, the appellant would be entitled to the compensation amount from the insured and insurer and to recover the same from the respondent No.4 – insurer also. The insurer in turn would be entitled to recover the same from the insured by seeking help of the concerned transport officials for recovery of the amount. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant further contended that in the instant case the appellant has been awarded a meager sum of Rs.3000/- only towards the injuries suffered by him. Learned counsel submits that the claimant- appellant had proved the injuries vide Exhibit-7 (injury report), wherein four injuries have been enumerated. All these injuries are on the right leg and one on the right hand. Three injuries on the right leg are lacerated wounds and the one injury on the right hand is in abrasion. All these injuries have been categorized, as simple in nature and having been caused by a blunt object. In view of provisions contained in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Para 4 regarding 8 damages in the case of injuries, it has been provided that for the non-grievous injuries an amount of Rs.1000/- is to be awarded. In that view of the matter, the claimant-appellant is held entitled to get an amount of Rs.1000/- for each of the injuries suffered by him, as against the awarded amount of Rs.3000/- by the learned Tribunal. I am inclined to award a further sum of Rs.1000/- towards medical expenses. In view of the above, the total sum to which the claimant-appellant would be entitled is Rs.5000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim i.e. 26.03.1996 up to the date of its realization. This miscellaneous appeal stands allowed as aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs. (Dalip Singh), J. ashok/