Insurance Company does not bear any liability if offending driver does not have valid driving license: High Court of Chattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR M.A(C) No.13015 Reserved on 13.04.2021 Pronounced on 09.06.2021 1. Madhusudan Sahu S o Shri Raghav Sahu Aged About 50 Years R o Village Ranai Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt. Koria Chhattisgarh2. Shivkumar Sahu S o Shri Rambadan Sahu Aged About 45 Years R o Village Ranai Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt. Koria ChhattisgarhAppellants 1. Shivram Khutia S o Late Mangla Khutia Aged About 27 Years Caste Belma R o Charcha Colliery Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt. Koria Chhattisgarh 2. Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office At I.C.I.C.I. Bank Tower Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai 400 051 India.Respondents Respondents No.1 & 3 For Respondent No.4 Shri Raj Kumar Pali Advocate None though served Shri Amrito Das along with Shri T. Abraham Advocate Shri Dashrath Gupta Advocate Single Bench: Hon ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal J C A V Award This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the owner Madhusudan Sahu and driver Shiv Kumar Sahu under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988questioning the legality and propriety of the award impugned dated 13.07.2015 passed in Claim Case No.52 2013 whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Baikunthpur District Koria (for short the Claims Tribunal ) while exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability has awarded the total amount of compensation payable to the Claimant to the tune of Rs.4 00 000 along with its interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of actual payment. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 03.07.2012 at 10.00 a.m Claimant Shirvram while driving a motorcycle was going from his village Charcha to Baikunthpur along with his brother Lingraj Khutia and as soon as they reached near “Odgi Naka new petrol pump” it was dashed vehemently from its opposite direction by the offending vehicle “truck” bearing its registration No.CG 16 A 1777 owing to rash and negligent driving by its driver namely Shiv Kumar Sahu Non applicant No.1. The alleged offending vehicle was owned by Non Applicant No.2 Madhusudan Sahu which was insured with Non applicant No.3 I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. On account of the aforesaid accident the Claimant got injured badly while his brother Lingraj Khutia died during the course of his treatment giving rise to the institution of the claim Petition by the Claimant submitting inter alia that he is a Computer Operator and working as such in the “Sahkari Vipnan Sangh Maryadit” at a monthly salary of Rs.6 400 and has claimed a total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5 84 124 The aforesaid claim has been contested by the Non applicants According to Non applicants No.1 & 2 the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the Claimant himself and pleaded further that since the alleged offending vehicle “truck” was insured with the I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. therefore in case of any liability being fastened then it could be indemnified by the said Company. While the said Insurance Company contested the claim mainly on the ground that since the alleged offending vehicle was insured as “Goods Carrying Vehicle” but was being used without any permit and fitness certificate by a driver who was not even holding the valid and effective driving license therefore no liability could be fastened upon it. Non applicant No.4 United India Insurance Company Ltd has contested the claim mainly on the ground that as the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of alleged truck no liability as such could therefore be fastened upon it. After considering the evidence led by the parties it was held by the Claims Tribunal that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the alleged offending vehicle “truck” as a result of which the Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% and that by exonerating the said Insurance Company awarded total amount of compensation along with its interest as mentioned hereinabove. Shri Raj Kumar Pali learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the finding of the Tribunal holding that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license on the date of the alleged accident is apparently contrary to law and the materials available on record. According to him since the investigator of the Insurance Company namely Santosh through whom the alleged driving licensegot verified from the Regional Transport Office Secunderabad was not examined therefore no reliance could have been placed upon the reportfurnished by the said Regional Transport Office in arriving at a conclusion that the driver of it was not holding the valid and effective driving license and has placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of “National Insurance Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others” reported in 3 SCC 297. It is contended further that the amount of compensation as determined by the Tribunal is on higher side and therefore deserves to be modified. On the other hand Shri Amrito Das along with Shri T. Abraham learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the amount of compensation as determined by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not require to be interfered Shri Dashrath Gupta learned Counsel appearing for Non applicant No.5 United India Insurance Company Ltd has supported the award impugned as passed by the Tribunal. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire Ex.D 3C is the information furnished by the Regional Transport Officer Secunderabad under Right to Information Act to the surveyor of the Insurance Company namely Santosh regarding the verification of the Driving License Number H 1182. According to it the alleged driving license which appears to be in the name of the driver of the offending vehicle namley Shiv Kumar Sahu was neither issued from the said Office nor any endorsement was made therein. Ex.D 4C is the particulars of the driving license of the said driver Shiv Kumar Sahu issued from the Licensing Authority Ambikapur District Surguja which was duly established by the employee of the said Office namely Pawan Kumar Sahu. He was examined on behalf of the owner and driver of the alleged offending vehicle. A bare perusal of his statement would show that the driving license of the said driver was renewed with effect from 04.07.2012 to 03.07.2015 i.e. after the date of its expiry which was expired on 15.12.2011. It is thus apparent that the driving license of the said driver was not in existence from 16.12.2011 up to 03.07.2012 as it was renewed only with effect from 04.07.2012. The driver of the alleged offending vehicle was therefore authorized to drive the same only with effect from 04.07.2012 and was certainly not authorized to drive the same when the alleged accident occurred on 03.07.2012. It appears further that no driving license was issued from the Regional Transport Office Ambikapur as reflected from the testimony of the said witness Pawan Kumar and it appears further from his evidence that prior to issuance of renewal of his licenseit was not verified though was required to be verified as his license was issued for the first time from a different State i.e. Secunderabadis concerned the same is however noted to be distinguishable from the facts involved herein as the Appellants are relying upon the renewal of the alleged driving license which was however found to be renewed with effect from 4th July 2012 i.e. after the occurrence of the alleged accident which took place on 03.07.2012. In so far as the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is concerned I find that after following the strict principles of law the same has been determined and as such the same is hereby affirmed In view of the foregoing discussions I do not find any substance in this Appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sanjay S. Agrawal Judge

Summary: Typically when a vehicle is insured, any accident that occurs at the fault of the driver is compensated for by the insurance company. However if the vehicle is driven by an unauthorised person like someone without a valid driving licence, the insurance company cannot be held liable. This issue was addressed in the judgement passed by a single-member bench consisting of Justice Sanjay S Agarwal in the case of Madhusudan Sahu &amp; Others v. Shivram Khutia &amp; Others [M.A(C) No. 1303 of 2015] on 9th June 2021. The claimant, Shivram Khutia along with his brother Lingraj Khutia were travelling on a motorcycle from Charcha to Baikunthpur when the offending truck dashed into their motor cycle owing to the negligence from its driver, Shiv Kumar Sahu on 3rd July 2012. The offending truck was owned by the appellant, Madhusudan Sahu and was insured by Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. As a result of this accident the claimant was badly injured and his brother Lingraj died soon after. Shivram Khutia claimed Rs 5,84,124 as compensation for the accident. However the company which insured the offending vehicle refused any liability on the grounds that the truck was insured as a “goods carrying vehicle”, but was being used without any permit for the same and additionally the negligent driver was not even holding a valid driving licence. The appellant contended before the court that firstly the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur was too high and secondly that as the offending vehicle was insured, the liability must be borne by Lombard General Insurance Company. The Insurance Company once again reiterated and they owed no obligation since the driver did not have a valid driving licence and added that the amount ordered by the tribunal was not too much but would have to be borne by the appellant himself. Analysing the costs, trauma and disability suffered by the claimant, the court found that the compensation that the Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay was not in any way too much. Additionally it was also found that as the driver Shiv Kumar Sahu did not possess a valid driving licence, he was not authorised to be driving the vehicle insured by the Company and hence the Company cannot be held in any way liable and the costs would have to be borne by the owner of the offending vehicle himself.