# Gautam Filling Station v. Munnu Singh & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1934
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-09
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gautam-filling-station-v-munnu-singh-anr-43888
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

C.S.C.

The appellant herein is Gautam Filling Station (owner of tanker no. UP 21-N/1123). The appellant has come
up challenging the judgement and award dated 27.2.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal,
Moradabad whereby a sum of Rs. 1,98,900/- with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the
claim petition has been awarded.

Having noticed above statutory requirements, the most pertinent thing, to my mind, is that statutory
requirements may not have any relevance with the actual cause of accident or the negligence or the manner
in which the accident had taken place.

In such view of the matter, I find that the view taken by the learned tribunal is perfectly just and legal and
warrants no interference by this Court in appeal.

The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Held: Para-

Case Law discussed:
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mangare and others, 2011 (4) T.A.C. 229; National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. K. Ramasamy and others, 2007 (3) T.A.C. 125;

## Text

1934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Everything can be given go by but this omission/ silence on the
part of appellant does not come out with specific description regarding the factum of suicide.

42. The appellant, it appears, is taking shelter behind technicalities of this case which technicalities
are not existing and not working to the advantage of the appellant. It can be summed up that the demand of
dowry was persistently made by the appellant. There is presumption of dowry death raised against the
appellant. This presumption was not rebutted by the appellant. The prosecution witnesses have given
consistent version of dowry death.

43. Upon careful perusal and appraisal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, no apparent or
inherent error or illegality is discernible. The aforesaid citation in the case of Gurdeep Singh (supra)
regarding presumption of dowry death and import of 113 -B of Evidence Act as discussed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in para no. 8 is not helpful to the appellant for the aforesaid reasons. The trial court has taken a
panoramic view of the case and has considered the matter in its entirety and after careful perusal of evidence
and circumstances has recorded finding of conviction which finding of conviction cannot be faulted with at
this stage.

44. Therefore, the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2015 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2015
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Raibareli in Sessions Trial No.432 of 2010 arising out of
Case Crime No. 1229 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and in the alternative under Section 302
IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohanganj, District Raebareli, is upheld in appeal.

45.Consequently the appeal being devoid of force is dismissed.

46. In this case, appellant Abubakar is in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence
imposed upon him in the aforesaid sessions trial.

47. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to trial court for intimation and necessary follow up
action.
-----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

First Appeal From Order No.- 1898 Of 2014

Gautam Filling Station ...Appellant
Versus
Munnu Singh & Anr. ...Respondents
5 All. Gautam Filling Station Vs Munnu Singh & Anr.

1935
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Archit Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

The appellant herein is Gautam Filling Station (owner of tanker no. UP 21-N/1123). The appellant has come
up challenging the judgement and award dated 27.2.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal,
Moradabad whereby a sum of Rs. 1,98,900/- with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the
claim petition has been awarded.

Having noticed above statutory requirements, the most pertinent thing, to my mind, is that statutory
requirements may not have any relevance with the actual cause of accident or the negligence or the manner
in which the accident had taken place.

In such view of the matter, I find that the view taken by the learned tribunal is perfectly just and legal and
warrants no interference by this Court in appeal.

The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Held: Para-

Case Law discussed:
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mangare and others, 2011 (4) T.A.C. 229; National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. K. Ramasamy and others, 2007 (3) T.A.C. 125;

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Archit Mehrotra learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant prays that he may be permitted to
correct the name of the appellant, which is only a typing mistake.

3. Prayer is allowed. He may do so during the course of day. Office is directed to make
necessary correction in the office record.

4. The appellant herein is Gautam Filling Station (owner of tanker no. UP 21-N/1123). The
appellant has come up challenging the judgement and award dated 27.2.2014 passed by the Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal, Moradabad whereby a sum of Rs. 1,98,900/- with interest at the rate of
7% from the date of filing of the claim petition has been awarded.

5. In brief, the facts of this case are that on 27.4.2011 at about 6:30 pm claimant-Munnu
Singh was standing by the side of the road and was having sugarcane juice. He was hit by tanker
no. UP 21-N/1123, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the tanker. The
tanker hit the sugarcane juice trolley and the claimant was injured. He was rushed to Vivekanand
Hospital, Moradabad and had incurred about Rs. 4,00,000/- on his treatment. He became disable.
1936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The claimant is about 24 years and was working in Panchayat department and was drawing a salary
of Rs. 11,000/- as government servant.

6. Learned tribunal held that at the time of accident the tanker driver was not holding valid
driving licence as at the time of accident the driver was driving tanker without there being any
endorsement that he was authorized to drive transport vehicle carrying "dangerous and hazardous
goods". On the basis of the same, it was found that there was a breach of policy condition, and
therefore, the insurance company, being the insurer of the tanker, was directed to first pay the
amount with a right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Admittedly, the insurance
company has paid the awarded amount and hence filed recovery proceedings against the appellant
herein.

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that admittedly the offending
vehicle is a transport vehicle and the driver was holding valid and effective licence to drive the
tanker, which is a transport vehicle and he was authorized to drive the transport vehicle.

8. On issues no. 1 and 5 regarding factum and negligence, it was decided that the accident
was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tanker driver and the claimant has not
contributed to the negligence.

9. On issue no. 2, it was found that the tanker driver was having valid registration
certificate and road permit.

10. Issue no. 3 was regarding validity of the driver licence. A photocopy of the driving
licence of driver Satish Kumar was filed as paper no. 20-C by the owner to indicate that the driving
licence was valid for LMV (private) and subsequently an endorsement to drive transport vehicle
and passenger vehicle was also made. This driving licence was got verified by the insurance
company and investigator report as well as the report on Form No. 54 was filed before the learned
tribunal as paper no. 140C/2 and 140C/3 and Sri Shailendra Krishna Verma, Administrative Officer
was produced as DW-1 by the appellant-company who proved the same. It was found by the
learned tribunal that there was no endorsement for driving transport vehicle carrying goods of
dangerous and hazardous nature, and therefore, it was found that the driving licence was not valid
for driving the tanker as was being done in the present case.

11. Issue no. 3 as decided by the learned tribunal is quoted as under:

"जनस्तारर् िाद जबन्दु स ख्या-3

1- यह वाद डबन्दु इस आशय का डिडमगत हआ है डक क्ा कडथत दुघगर्िा के समय र्ेंकर सं०-यू0पी021 एि-1123
के र्ालक के पास वैि िी०एल० िहीं था

2- इस सम्बन्ध में डवपक्षी सं0-2 बीमा क० की ओर से अपिे उिर पत्र में तद्िुसार कथि डकये गये है।
5 All. Gautam Filling Station Vs Munnu Singh & Anr.

1937

3 इस सम्बन्ध में प्रश्गत वाहि के स्वामी/ डवपक्षी सं० 1 द्वारा सूर्ी 17-क से प्रश्गत वाहि के र्ालक सतीश
कुमार पुत्र भूकि सरि के िी०एल० की फोर्ोस्टेर् प्रडत 20 ग दखस्थल की गयी है। डजसके अिुसार यह मुरादाबाद का बिा है।
डजसका िंबर है-7140/एम०बी०िी०/एि०र्ी०६96 तथा जारी करिे का डदिांक 05-8-96 है। जो एल०एम०वी० प्राईवेर् के डलये है।
लेडकि यह र्ासपोर्ग व्हीकल व पैसेजर व्हीकल के डलये भी वैश होिा अंडकत है। यह 19-5-2011 तक तथा तत्पश्चात 19-7-2011 से
18-5-2014 तक के डलये वैि होिा अंडकत हैं। इस प्रकरण में दुघगर्िा का डदिांक 27-4-2011 है।

4- इस सम्बन्ध में डवपक्षी सं०-2 बीमा कंठ के डवद्वाि अडिवक्ता िे अपिे द्वारा सूर्ी 138-ि से दाखिल अपिे
इन्वैखस्टगेर्र एस०के० अग्रवाल की ररपोर्ग की छाया प्रडत 140-ग/2 व फामग 54 की छाया प्रडत 140-ग/3 तथा िी०िब्लूए-1 के रूम में
परीडक्षत कराये गये अपिे प्रशासडिक अडिकारी श्री शैलेन्द्र कृष्ण वमाग के बयाि की ओर अडिकरण का ध्याि आकडषगत करते हये तकग
डदया है डक इस िाइडवंग लाईसेंस पर मोर्र वाहि अडिडियम की घास-14 के प्राडविािों के अिुपालि में Dangerous & Hazardous
goods के डलये कैप होिे का पृष्ांकि िहीं है। इस आिार पर यह िाईडवंग लाईसेंस डवडिक रूप से वैि होिा िहीं कहा जा सकता है।
इस प्रकार यह तत्य साडबत है डक कडथत दुघगर्िा के डदिांक व समय पर प्रश्गत वाहि बीमा पाडलसी की शतों के उल्लघि में र्लाया जा
रहा था। इस सम्बन्ध में उन्होंिे डिम्नडलखित डवडिणगय प्रस्तुत डकया है।

न्य इखिया एश्योरेंस क ० जल० बनाम अनबालागन आजद 2010 (1) टी०ए०सी०-173 (मदास)

इस डवडिणग में माििीय न्यायालय िे अडभडििागररत डकया है डक यडद िाइडवंग लाईसेंस पर हैवी व्हीकल (र्ैक्टर)
र्लािे का पृष्ांकि िहीं है तो उसे वैि िाइडवंग लाईसेंस होिा िहीं कहा जा सकता है।

5- यार्ी व डवपक्षी स०-1 के डवद्वाि अडभवक्ता िे इस तको का िण्डि डकया है। डवपक्षी सं०-1 की ओर से
डिम्नडलखित डवडिणगय प्रस्तुत डकया गया है

बलिीर जस ह बनाम श्रीमती शोभा कश्यप टी०ए०सी०-160 (उत्तरािि) 2008 (2)

इस डवडिणगय में माििीय न्यायालय िे अडभडििाररत डकया है डक डियम-193 मोर्र वाहि डियमावली के सन्दभग में
अडभडििाररत डकया है डक यडद डकसी िाइडवंग लाइसेन्स पर डहल रोिस का पृष्ांकि िहीं है तो इस आिार पर यह अवैि िहीं हो जाता
है।

6- इस सम्बन्ध में मोर्र वाहि अडिडियम की िारा-14 (2) (क) के परन्तुक में यह प्राडविाि डकया गया है डक परन्तु
यह डक अिुज्ञखप्तिारी के मामले िे जो उस अिुज्ञखप्त पर ितरिाक या जोखिम भरा माल याि र्लाता है यहााँ ऐसी अिुज्ञखप्त एक वषग हेतु
प्रभावी रहेगी। उसका िवींडिकरण ऐसी शतग के अध्यािीि होगा डक ऐसे र्ालक डवडहत पाठ्यक्रम का एक डदवस का पुिश्चया प्रडशक्षण
पूणग कर लेगा।

7- प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में दुघगर्िा काररत करिे वाला वाहि र्ेंकर है जो डक पैढोल / िीजल लािे ले जािे के डलए प्रयुक्त
है। मोर्र वाहि डियमावली की सारणी-3 के अिुसार वह ितरिाक या जोिम भरे मालयाि की श्रेणी में आता है। डवपक्षी सं०-1 के
प्रश्मत वाहि / र्ेंकर के र्ालक सतीश कुमार के िाईडवंग लाइसेंस की फोर्ो प्रडत 20-ग पत्रावली पर दाखिल है जो 19-5-2011 से 185-2014 तक के डलए वैि होिा अंडकत है। इस प्रकार यह िाईडवंग लाइसेंस एक साथ तीि वषग के डलये िवीिीकृत हआ है। इस प्रकार
वह िारा-14 (2) (क) के परन्तुक के उक्त प्राडविािों के अिुरूप एक वषग के डलये िवीिीकृत िहीं है। इस िारा के यह प्राडविाि
आज्ञापक है। इस आिार पर अडिकरण के डिष्कषग में प्रस्तुत िाइडवंग लाईसेंस कागज संख्या 20-क ितरिाक या जोखिम भरे
मालयाि को र्लािे के डलये वैि होिा िहीं कहा जा सकता है। इस प्रकार डववेर्ि व उपलब्ध साक्ष्य के आिार पर अडिकरण के
डिष्कषग में दुघगर्िा की अडकत डदिांक व समय पर प्रश्गत वाहि के र्ालक के पास वैि व प्रभावी िाईडवंग लाईसेंस िहीं था। वाद डवन्दु
सं०-3 तद्िुसार डिणीत डकया जाता है।

12. Admittedly, the appellant herein is a filling station engaged in the business of petrol
pump selling dangerous and hazardous products. Admittedly, the tanker in question is used for
1938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
carrying petrol/diesel etc. by the owner (appellant herein) and as such, it is a transport vehicle
engaged for carrying of dangerous and hazardous materials, and therefore, there is statutory
requirement of having endorsement in the driving licence of the driver that he is authorized to drive
a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life.

13. Relevant provision of Sections 3 and 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act of 1988') are quoted as under:

"3. Necessity for driving licence. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any
public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the
vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle
hired for his own use of rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless
his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.

14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. (1) A learner's licence issued
under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six
months from the date of issue of the licence.

(2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,-

(a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of
three years:

Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of
dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be
subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed
syllabus; and

(b) in the case of any other licence-

(i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has
not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,

(A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal;
or

(B) until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years,

whichever is earlier;

(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (I), has attained the age of fifty years on
the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may
be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal:
5 All. Gautam Filling Station Vs Munnu Singh & Anr.

1939
 Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this subsection continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry."

(Emphasis supplied)

14. Relevant Rule 9 and Rule 132 (5) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1989') are quoted as under:-

"9. Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous
or hazardous goods:- (1) One year from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicle
(Amendment) Rules, 1993, any person driving a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or
hazardous nature to human life shall, in addition to being the holder of a driving licence to drive a
transport vehicle, also have the ability to read and write at least one Indian language out of those
specified in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution and English and also possess a certificate of
having successfully passed a course consisting of following syllabus and periodicity connected with
the transport of such goods:

......................................................................

(2) The holder of a driving licence possessing the minimum educational
qualification or the certificate referred to in sub-rule (1), shall make an application in writing on a
plain paper along with his driving licence and the relevant certificate to the licensing authority in
whose jurisdiction he resides for making necessary entries in his driving licence and if the driving
licence is in Form 7, the application shall be accompanied by the fee as is referred to in Sl. No. 8 of
the Table to rule 32.

(3) The licensing authority, on receipt of the application referred to in sub-rule (2),
shall make an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised
to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life.

(4) A licensing authority other than the original licensing authority making any
such endorsement shall communicate the fact to the original licensing authority."

132. Responsibility of the Transporter or owner of goods carriage.-

(1)............................

(2)................

(3)...................
(4)
1940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(5) It shall be the duty of the owner to ensure that the driver of the goods carriage
carrying dangerous or hazardous goods holds a driving licence as per provisions of rule 9 of these
rules.

(6)...........................

(Emphasis supplied)

15. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgements rendered in the case of
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mangare and others, 2011 (4) T.A.C. 229 (All.) and National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. K. Ramasamy and others, 2007 (3) T.A.C. 125 (Mad.) in support of
his contentions.

16. I am afraid that these rulings are of no help to the learned counsel for the appellant,
inasmuch as the the mandatory requirements of Sections 3 and 14 of the Act of 1988 have not been
considered in the above noted rulings. In the case of National Insurance Company vs. K.
Ramasamy and others (supra), mandatory requirement of Section 3 of the Act of 1988 that no
person shall drive a motor vehicle in public place unless he holds an effective driving licence
issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle has been ignored on the ground that the evidence
on record does not show that absence of endorsement under Rule 9 of the Rules has contributed to
the accident. In my opinion, fulfillment of statury requirement cannot be ignored or even diluted
because of facts of a given case. If it is permitted, it would not only almost nullify the statutory
mandate as given in Section 3 and Section 14 of the Act of 1988 but would also give a free hand to
tribunals to decide contrary to statutory requirement of the Act of 1988 on the basis of the facts of
the case. Insofar as judgement in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mangare and others (supra) is
concerned, suffice it to say that the question involved in the present case as discussed above, was
left open to be decided in some other case.

17. A perusal of proviso to Section 14 (2)(a) of the Act of 1988 would clearly indicate that
endorsement of carrying goods of dangerous and hazardous nature is necessary in such cases where
the transport vehicle is carrying dangerous and hazardous materials, which shall be effective only
for a period of one year and for renewal it is necessary for the driver to undergo one day refresher
course of prescribed syllabus whereas Section 14(2) (2) of the Act of 1988 provides that driving
licence issued to driver for transport vehicle will be effective for three years. Thus, there is material
difference in requirement to be fulfilled for holding these licences.

18. Clearly, the legislature in its wisdom has provided different qualifications for the
drivers of goods carrying dangerous and hazardous goods. The period of renewal for such licence is
also shorter than the usual licence. In such view of the matter, it is a mandatory requirement that
the drivers of driving such vehicles must have an endorsement from the licensing authority for
authorizing to drive transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous and hazardous nature. In such a
case, the licence is effective only for a period of one year and renewal thereof is subject to the
condition that driver undergoes one day refresher course of prescribed syllabus.
5 All. Gautam Filling Station Vs Munnu Singh & Anr.

1941
19. Again, Rule 9 (1) of the Rules of 1989 clearly provides for different educational
qualification for drivers of goods carrying dangerous and hazardous materials. According to Rule 9
(3), endorsement of authorization that he is authorized to drive a carriage carrying goods of
dangerous or hazardous nature is mandatory.

20. In case the provision of Section 3 and 14 of the Act of 1988 is interpreted otherwise, in
the opinion of the Court, it would frustrate the mandate of Sections 3 and 14 of the Act of 1988
regarding necessity of having endorsement of driving such transport vehicle carrying goods of
dangerous and hazardous nature, which is to remain effective for a short period of one year and
renewal is also with a strict requirement that driver must undergo one day refresher course of
prescribed syllabus. As such, the learned tribunal has correctly found that the tanker driver was not
having valid licence.

21. I have already made an observation that fulfillment of statutory requirements cannot be
ignored or even diluted because of facts of the given case. This can be looked into from other
angles also for which consideration of certain provisions of the Act of 1988 would be required. For
this purpose, extract of Section 39, Section 56, Section 66 (1), Section 147 (1) (5) and Section 149
(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are quoted as under:

"39. Necessity for registration.- No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no
owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in
any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate
of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a
registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner:
............................

56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles.- (1) Subject to the provisions of
sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the
purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such
particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the
prescribed authority, or by an authorized testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect
that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made
thereunder:-

Provided that where the prescribed authority or the 'authorized testing station"
refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing
for such refusal.

(2).............................

66. Necessity for permits.- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the
use of vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually
carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or
1942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising
him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:

....................

147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.- (1) In order to comply with
the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which-

(a).................

(b)..........

Provided that a policy shall not required-

(i)............

(ii) to cover any contractual liability.

(2)...........

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an
insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or
classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to
cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.

149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgements and awards against persons insured in
respect of third party risks.- (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under subsection (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgement or
award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of section 147 being a liability covered by the terms of the policy or under the
provisions of section 163A is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then,
notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or
cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person
entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as
if he were the judgement debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in
respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment
relating to interest on judgements.

(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any
judgement or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgement
or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims
Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as
execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of
5 All. Gautam Filling Station Vs Munnu Singh & Anr.

1943
any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the
action on any of the following grounds, namely:-

(a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of
the following conditions, namely: -

(i)........................

(a)...................

(b)...............

(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where
the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or

(d)............

(ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any persons
who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a
driving licence during the period of disqualification; or

(iii) ....................

(Emphasis supplied)

22. Thus, clearly for plying any vehicle on public place or in any other place, registration is
necessary. In regard to transport vehicle, permit is necessary for use of vehicle whether or not it is
actually carrying any passenger or goods. Section 56 provides for necessity of having certificate of
fitness for transport vehicle and it provides that subject to provisions of Section 59 and 60, a
transport vehicle shall not be deemed to validly registered for the purpose of section 39, unless it
carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be
prescribed. Thus, it clearly indicates that a transport vehicle must have a certificate of fitness for
the purpose of registration. Section 146 is regarding necessity for insurance against third party risk.
Section 147 provides for requirements of policy and limits of liability. Under sub-section 2 of
Section 149, an insurer can take defence as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 149 to avoid
his liability and insurer can defend itself on the ground that there is breach of policy condition,
which also includes that the vehicle is being used for a purpose not allowed by the permit under
which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle and one of the conditions of the
policy can be that it excludes driving by a named person or persons or any person who is not duly
licensed, or any other person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence
during the period of disqualification.
1944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
23. The scheme of Chapter XI, which is regarding insurance of motor vehicle against
third party risks, clearly provides that certain statutory defence are available to the insurer to
defend itself for the purpose of avoiding its liability to pay any sum, which is being claimed
under the policy of insurance.

24. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions definitely indicates that in case any
vehicle is to be plied on a public place or any other place, to make the insurer liable to pay
the compensation under the policy of insurance, statutory requirements have to be
necessarily fulfilled, and these requirements are more strict in the case of a transport vehicle.
Needless to say, that requirement of having valid licence is a statutory requirement and
absence of valid licence is a statutory defence available to the insurance company. It need
not be highlighted that the liability of the insurance company is contractual in nature. Insurer
is only an indemnifier. The basic liability is on the wrong doer i.e. the driver, thereafter the
owner is vicariously liable for wrong committed by his employee/agent. It is only by virtue
of the contract of insurance between the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company as
per Chapter IX, under Section 147 the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner for third party
risk. The law as developed is that in case of breach of any policy condition, after making
payment to the claimant as it is beneficial legislature, the insurer can recover the amount
from the owner in case of breach of any policy condition. Under the policy as per the
statutory requirements, a vehicle owner is under statutory obligation to have itself vehicle
registered in a case of transport vehicle; necessity is to have a certificate of fitness under
Section 56, without which the vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the
purpose of Section 139 and there is a statutory obligation to have permit in a case of
transport vehicle to use the vehicle in public place whether or not such vehicle is carrying
any passenger or goods for the purpose of plying in a place. In case all or any of these
statutory requirement noted above is lacking, the insurer can avoid its liability. Apart from
the statutory obligation in the terms of contract of insurance, it is clearly provided that
vehicle will be driven by a duly licensed driver or otherwise the insurer will not be liable to
indemnify the owner.

25. Having noticed above statutory requirements, the most pertinent thing, to my
mind, is that statutory requirements may not have any relevance with the actual cause of
accident or the negligence or the manner in which the accident had taken place. For example,
if the other statutory requirements are satisfied but the vehicle was not registered, still the
liability can be avoided by the insurer. Similarly, in a case of transport vehicle having a valid
permit or not may not be relevant with the actual cause of accident on the issue of negligence
but still the liability can be avoided by the insurer because it is statutory requirement and as
such, it is a breach of policy condition. Similarly, there is requirement of fitness certificate in
a case of transport vehicle, which is also essential for registration, liability can be avoided by
the owner by claiming that the vehicle may not be having a certificate of fitness but it was in
an absolute fit condition at the time of accident. But can it really be claimed that the liability
cannot be avoided by the insurer on the ground of lack of certificate of fitness? In my
opinion, the answer is no. Similarly, if a transport vehicle does not have a permit to ply on
5 All. Gautam Filling Station Vs Munnu Singh & Anr.

1945
Road-A but the accident had taken place on Road-A, if it is permitted to be claimed that
permit has no relevance with the liability of the insurance company as the negligence of the
driver of the vehicle was the cause of accident whether it had taken place on Road-A or on
Road-B or that on the facts of the case absence of permit is immaterial, to my mind, it would
again amount to nullifying the statutory requirement of Section 66 of the Act of 1988.
Similarly, as per Section 146, the third party risk does not cover any contractual liability,
meaning thereby apart from what has been provided under the Act and subject to the
statutory requirement of the Act of 1988, the insurance company is not under obligation to
undertake any other liability on its shoulder whereas on payment of premium, as it is a
matter of contract, the insurance company can undertake to satisfy any liability of the owner.

26. Thus, if the statutory requirements as noted above are ignored or diluted on the
basis of fact of the case or the factum of accident, say that the driver of the vehicle was
admittedly negligent and the insurance company is not permitted to raise the defence that
such statutory requirements were not fulfilled, it would amount to nullifying the limited
protection granted to the insurance company under Section 149 of the Act of 1988.

27. In such view of the matter, in my opinion, Section 149 provides for statutory
protection available to the company, which clearly shows that no sum shall be payable by the
insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgement or award and the insurer can
defend the action on the ground as provided under Section 149 which also includes that it
can avoid its liability if the person driving the vehicle was not duly licensed. For this
purpose, needless to say that the requirement of Section 3 and Section 14 of the Act of 1988
and Rule 9 and Rule 132 (5) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which have already
been noted above and need no repetition, are to be fulfilled or complied with for holding a
valid licence.

28. Further, broadly speaking Chapter IX is beneficial piece of legislation insofar as
the claimants are concerned, but the scheme of the Act of 1988 as reflected in other
provisions of the Act of 1988 nowhere indicates that it is a beneficial piece of legislation for
owners also so that they can avoid their liability even without fulfilling statutory
requirements.

29. No other issue is pressed before this Court.

30. In such view of the matter, I find that the view taken by the learned tribunal is
perfectly just and legal and warrants no interference by this Court in appeal.

31. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

32. The Registry of this Court is directed to remit the statutory deposit to the
concerned tribunal within three weeks for being adjusted towards the payment of awarded
amount to the claimant.
1946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-III, J.

Government Appeal No.- 2502 Of 2003

State Of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Ravi Prakash Srivastava ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellant:
Government Advocate

Counsel for Respondent:
K.K. Shangloo, Ram Tiwari

Held

The trial court acquitted the accused-respondent of offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC and
Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 due to lack of reliable evidence.
The informant (PW-7) did not specifically accuse the respondent of withdrawing ₹8800 fraudulently from his
account either in the FIR or during trial.
Evidence showed that the allegations were made generally against bank employees and no direct evidence
connected the accused-respondent with the alleged embezzlement.
Testimony of PW-1 (bank employee) showed that payments made on withdrawal forms were processed
according to banking procedure and signatures were verified before payment.
The concerned account holders, including L.N. Nigam, Smt. Shakuntala Bhatt, J.N. Srivastava and V.K.
Trivedi, were not produced before the court and none lodged any complaint against the accused.
Other prosecution witnesses were merely bank officials who did not provide evidence proving the charges
against the accused.
The prosecution failed to establish embezzlement, forgery, or misuse of official position beyond
reasonable doubt.
In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only when the trial court's judgment is perverse,
illegal, or against the evidence on record.
Since the trial court's view was reasonable and supported by evidence, no interference was warranted.
Consequently, the Government Appeal was dismissed and the acquittal of the accused-respondent was
affirmed.

CASE LAW CITED
None

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)