# The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Renu & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 282
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-07
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 758 of 2016
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-oriental-insurance-company-ltd-v-smt-renu-ors-45047
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Driving
licence - Validity - Tribunal found the
offending vehicle was light goods motor
vehicle - Tribunal further found that in
1 All. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu & Ors.
283
the
motor
vehicle,
three
wheeler
passenger
vehicle
and
four
wheeler
vehicle is also included - No otherwise
evidence - Offending vehicle was not
heavy transport vehicle - Driver was very
much authorized to drive the offending
vehicle - Held, finding of Tribunal is
justified and according to law which
deserves no interference. (Para 6)
Held -

## Text

282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
endorsement (on the licence) driving
commercial vehicle would be violative of
the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy and would amount to not driving
such vehicle with valid and effective
driving licence.

11. The point raised on behalf of the
owner-appellant relates to fact that in view
of the clear cut mandate of the Hon'ble
Apex Court herein quoted above also
fortifies claim of the owner-appellant that
driving licence to drive the light motor
vehicle will not lose its effectiveness
merely on ground that the vehicle in
question though registered for commercial
purpose was being used at the time of the
accident for private purpose and the point
to be seen in such case is rooted to core
consideration whether the nature of the
vehicle permits the holder of the driving
licence for driving light motor vehicle or
not and that point works categorical in
favour of the owner in the context.

12. In this case, validity of the
driving licence cannot be doubted even in
the absence of any particular or special
endorsement
made
on
it
as
that
requirement is not legal one. The claim
raised on behalf of the owner-appellant is
sustained in view of the categorical finding
recorded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Mukund Dewangan (supra).
Similarly, finding recorded in relation to
the validity of the driving licence on issue
no.8 by the Tribunal is on the face
perverse, erroneous and the same is hereby
set aside and it is held that the driver of the
offending vehicle Maruti Van U.P.53 E
1575 was duly licensed on 12.01.1996 at
9:00 p.m. when the accident occurred on
the tri-crossing of Village Futhawa Inar,
Police Station Chauri Chaura, District
Gorakhpur.

13. Insofar as overall amount
awarded under facts and circumstances of
the case as compensation amount to the
tune of Rs.1,49,000/- is concerned, the
same cannot be said to be either excessive
or unreasonable, the same is justified,
therefore,
operative
portion
of
the
impugned award passed by the Tribunal
dated 16.02.2000 along with 12% interest
is hereby sustained. The entire amount of
the compensation shall be paid by the
insurer of the offending vehicle i.e.
respondent no.6, Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd.
instead
of
the
owner-appellant
Ravindra Pal Yadav.

14. Accordingly, this appeal is
allowed in terms aforesaid.
----------
(2020)1ILR 282

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 758 of 2016

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Renu & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ramesh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Deepali Srivastava, Sri Ram Singh, Sri
Sanjay Kumar Tripathi, Sri Amit Kumar
Sinha

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Driving
licence - Validity - Tribunal found the
offending vehicle was light goods motor
vehicle - Tribunal further found that in
1 All. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu & Ors.
283
the
motor
vehicle,
three
wheeler
passenger
vehicle
and
four
wheeler
vehicle is also included - No otherwise
evidence - Offending vehicle was not
heavy transport vehicle - Driver was very
much authorized to drive the offending
vehicle - Held, finding of Tribunal is
justified and according to law which
deserves no interference. (Para 6)
Held -
6. Conclusion was further supported by the
judgment in Kulwant Singh & others Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2014 (4)
T.A.C. 676 (SC) in which the Supreme court
has laid down that if the driver is authorized to
drive light motor vehicle, even if there is no
endorsement for driving commercial vehicle, it
shall be inferred that the driver was authorized
to drive light passenger carriage vehicle and
light goods carriage vehicle and as such the
Insurance Company cannot deny to pay the
compensation.

First Appeal From Order dismissed. (E-1)
List of cases cited :-
1. Kulwant Singh & others Vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. 2014 (4) T.A.C. 676
(SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ramesh Singh, learned
counsel for the appellant and Shri Ram
Singh, learned counsel for the opposite
parties.

2. This appeal has been filed against
the judgment and award dated 30.11.2015
passed
by
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal /Additional District Judge, Court
no. 5, Gorakhpur in MACP No. 764 of
2012 (Smt. Renu Gupta & others Vs.
Prabhari Adhikari (Store) Nagar Nigam
Gorakhpur & others) by which the learned
Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,54,000/- as
compensation along with 7% simple
interest per annum from the date of filing
of this claim petition.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned
award, this appeal has been filed on the
ground that at the time of accident driver
of the vehicle was not having a valid
driving license to drive a transport vehicle
and he was having a license of driving
motorcycle or light motor vehicle. For
plying transport vehicle, an endorsement
was made on 29.12.2012 just after one day
after the accident, which clearly proves
that the vehicle was being driven in breach
of
insurance
policy.
Therefore
the
Insurance Company is not responsible to
pay compensation and the impugned
award is not sustainable under law and is
liable to be set aside.

4. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have
filed a cross appeal against the impugned
award
stating
that
the
awarded
compensation is on lower side and is liable
to be enhanced. The learned tribunal has
passed the award on the basis of notional
income of Rs. 15,000/- and it should be at
least Rs. 36,000/- per month. The learned
tribunal has omitted to consider the price
rise
while
determining
the
notional
income. At the time of death, the deceased
was only 3 years old and the learned
tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3 income
against the personal expenses of the
deceased. In the light of the decision of the
Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme
Court the awarded amount is liable to be
enhanced and the appeal of the Insurance
Company is liable to be dismissed.

5. From the memo of appeal itself, it
appears that the factual issues with regard
to negligence and rash driving, insurance
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of offending vehicle and other aspect
based on factual matrix have not been
challenged by the appellant. The appeal is
restricted to the only fact with regard to
validity of the driving license to drive
transport vehicle. In this regard, the only
submission that has been advanced is that
the accident took place on 28.12.2012 in
the day time and the driver was not
authorized to drive transport vehicle and
after the accident, on the very next day, an
endorsement was made in the license of
the driver, authorizing him to drive
transport vehicle and the validity of this
authorization is from 29.12.2012 to
28.12.2015. Admittedly at the time of
accident, the driver of the vehicle was
authorized to drive a motor cycle and light
motor vehicle.

6. From the perusal of the impugned
judgment, it appears that the learned
tribunal specifically framed a issue with
regard to validity of the driving license
and while disposing that issue, the learned
tribunal has discussed the nature of the
vehicle by which the accident took place.
On record the learned tribunal found that
the offending vehicle was light goods
motor vehicle and when unloaded the
weight of vehicle was 850 Kg and when
loaded the vehicle was 1550 Kg. Learned
tribunal has mentioned that under the
Motor Vehicle Act unloaded light motor
vehicle has been categorized up to the
weight of 7500 Kg. The learned tribunal
further found that in the motor vehicle,
three wheeler passenger vehicle and four
wheeler vehicle is also included and it also
includes goods delivery vehicle. No
otherwise evidence was given from the
side of the appellant. That the offending
vehicle was not heavy transport vehicle
and therefore, it was decided by the
learned tribunal on the basis of evidence,
that the driver was very much authorized
to drive the offending vehicle. This
conclusion was further supported by the
judgment in Kulwant Singh & others Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2014
(4) T.A.C. 676 (SC) in which the Supreme
court has laid down that if the driver is
authorized to drive light motor vehicle,
even if there is no endorsement for driving
commercial vehicle, it shall be inferred
that the driver was authorized to drive
light passenger carriage vehicle and light
goods carriage vehicle and as such the
Insurance Company cannot deny to pay
the compensation. In view of the law laid
down and as discussed above, the finding
of the learned Tribunal on this point is
justified and according to law which
deserves no interference.

7. This claim petition involves death
of a 3 years old child and the learned
Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 154000/- as
compensation which is in lower side by
which the appellant should not be
aggrieved. Nothing more has been argued
by the appellant.

8. In view of the above discussions, I
find no force in this appeal and the appeal
is liable to be dismissed.

9. The appeal is dismissed.

10. The office is directed to send a
copy of this judgment to the Court
concerned for information and necessary
compliance.

11. Stay if any shall stand vacated.
Remit back the amount of Rs. 25000/-
deposited by the appellant to the learned
Tribunal to be adjusted against the
awarded compensation.
----------
1 All. Smt. Sharda Yadav Vs. M. Shriniwas Rao & Ors.
285
(2020)1ILR 285

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1101 of 2019

Smt. Sharda Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
M. Shriniwas Rao & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri A.K. Malviya, Sri Satya Prakash Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rakesh Bahadur, Sri Rakesh Bahadur

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Negligence
committed by Driver - Principles of
contributory negligence - Burden of proof
- Negligence means failure to exercise
required degree of care and expected of a
prudent driver - Where there is a duty to
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen likely to
caused physical injury to person - The
degree of care required depends upon
facts in each case - Burden of proof for
contributory negligence on the part of
deceased has to be discharged by the
opponents - It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident.
(Para 6, 7 & 8)
Held -
10. In view of the fast and constantly
increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles
upon roads may be regarded to some extent as
coming within the principle of liability defined in
Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330.
From the point of view of pedestrian, the roads
of this country have been rendered by the use
of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit and
run' cases where drivers of motor vehicles who
have caused accidents, are unknown. In fact
such cases are increasing in number. Where a
pedestrian without negligence on his part is
injured or killed by a motorist, whether
negligently
or
not,
he
or
his
legal
representatives, as the case may be, should be
entitled to recover damages if principle of
social justice should have any meaning at all.

B. Interpretation of Statute - Motor
Accident Act, 1988 - Section 110-A and
110-B - Rule of Res Ipsa Loquitar - Scope
- Provisions are not merely procedural
provisions - It substantively affect the
rights of the parties - New situations and
new dangers require new strategies and
new remedies - It is possible to develop
the law - When a motor vehicle is being
driven with reasonable care, it would
ordinarily not meet with an accident and
therefore, rule of res-ipsa loquitar as a
rule of evidence may be invoked in motor
accident cases with greater frequency
than in ordinary civil suits. (Para 11 & 12)
First Appeal From Order partly allowed.
(E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330

2. Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005
ACJ(SC) 1840).

3. (2013) 7 SCC 476 Vimal Kanwar & Ors. Vs.
Kishore Dan & Ors.

4. National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC)
1050

5. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,
(2009) 6 SCC 121

6. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal
and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Shukla,
learned counsel for the appellant, Sri