Case: Pappu &amp; Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba &amp; Another

1. This appeal questions the legality and tenability of the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No.1138 of 2000, dated 9th October, 2014, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court whilst rejecting the only question raised before it regarding absolving the Insurance Company (Respondent No.2) from any liability in respect of truck bearingwhich was duly insured by respondent No.2 Insurance Company, on the ground that the same was not driven by a person having a valid licence, as found by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Allahabad in Claim Petition No.215 of 1999.2. In the claim petition it was asserted that on 12.08.1995 Om Prakash, son of Satku Lal, was driving Truckwhen it was knocked down by a rashly and negligently driven Truckcoming from the opposite direction, as a result of which Om Prakash succumbed to fatal injuries. The claim petition was filed by the widow of deceased Om Prakash. Om Prakash left behind his children Pappu, aged 16 years, Ramu, 12 years, Kumari Geeta, 14 years, Kumari Neetu, 10 years, Kumari Guriya, 8 years and his mother, Smt. Shiv Rani, at the time of the accident. The widow of deceased Om Prakash claimed compensation of Rs.7 lakh under Fault Liability and Rs.25,000/under No Fault Liability. The mother of Om Prakash claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/separately. On the date of the accident, Om Prakash was around 35 years of age and was a driver by profession.3. In the context of the sole contention raised before the High Court and reiterated before this Court, it is not necessary for us to dilate on factual aspects considered by the Tribunal except to state that the Tribunal, on analysis of the evidence on record, held that Om Prakash died because of the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Truck No.Although the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part, it absolved respondent No.2 Insurance Company by dismissing the claim petition against the said respondent. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/to opposite party No.3 Shiv Rani and Rs.1,75,000/to claimant Nos.1 to 6, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. In other words, the claim petition was partly allowed against respondent No.1In the appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants against the said decision, the only question urged before the High Court was about the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal in absolving the respondent No.2 Insurance Company even though the offending Truckwas duly insured by the said Insurance Company. The High Court affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal that there was no pleading or any evidence adduced by the owner of the offending Truck to substantiate the fact that the Truck was driven by one Joginder Singh, whose driving licence was produced on record. The High Court also noted that there could be no presumption that Joginder Singh was driving the offending vehicle. The appellants have assailed the aforesaid view taken by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court.5. According to the appellants, the Insurance Company did not produce any evidence before the Tribunal. As a result, it was not open to the respondent No.2 Insurance Company to extricate itself from the liability, having duly insured the offending vehiclewhich fact has been substantiated by production of the Insurance Policy. A defence being available to the Insurance Company, that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorised person and/or person not having a valid driving licence, it was obligatory on the part of the Insurance Company to substantiate that defence and more so, to rebut the plea taken by the owner of the offending vehicle that the offending vehicle was being driven by an authorised person having a valid driving licence. To buttress this argument, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh and Ors. (2004) 3 SCCparagraph 18 of the Written Statement, however, a vague assertion has been made that on the alleged date of incident, the offending vehiclewas plied by an authorised person having a valid driving permit.8. In the Written Statement filed by the respondent No.2 Insurance Company to oppose the claim petition, it is asserted that the claimants should be put to strict proof about the occurrence of the accident and other related matters. It is then asserted that no insurance is directly issued by the Head Office of respondent No.2. The name of the Branch Office by which the vehicle in question was allegedly insured has not been disclosed and in its absence, it was difficult to trace out the insurance policy. Further, the original insurance policy will have to be summoned from the Insurer or owner of the vehicle. It is then asserted that neither has the alleged owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1) informed about any claim nor have the claimants made any claim to the Insurance Company. As regards the plea taken by respondent No.1owner of the offending vehicle, in paragraph 29 of the Written Statement, it has been asserted by respondent No.2 asThat in petition anywhere or in column 16 of the petition details or driving licence of the alleged driver are not given and in absence of details it is quite impossible for answering opposite party to ascertain the driving licence and its validity on the alleged date of accident, hence the driving licence if any and its validity on the alleged date of accident is denied. The answering opposite party could not be held liable for payment of any award if made, unless it is proved that the vehicle allegedly involved in the alleged accident was driving under valid driving licence by its authorized driver with due permission and under control of its owner and under valid road, permit, fitness, road tax etc. as required under the provisions of M.V. Act and also was driven with full compliance of the terms and conditions of the alleged insurance policy."

Reasoning:
12. In the present case, the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the appellants. It has, however, absolved the respondent No.2 Insurance Company from any liability for just reasons. The High Court has also affirmed that view. It rightly held that there can be no presumption that Joginder Singh was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.13. Be that as it may, no grievance about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been made by the appellantsclaimants (either before the High Court or before us in this appeal). Hence, that issue does not warrant any scrutiny. Similarly, the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1) has not challenged the findings of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court in favour of the insurer (respondent No.2), including on the factum that the vehicle was driven by a person who did not have a valid driving licence at the relevant time.In the present case, the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1) had produced the insurance certificate indicating that vehicle No. DIL5955 was comprehensively insured by the respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) for unlimited liability. Applying the dictum in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), to subserve the ends of justice, the insurer (respondent No.2) shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1) in accordance with law.