The Allahabad High Court has said in an important decision that the non-renewal of driving license cannot prevent the insurance company from paying compensation.
A Single Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker passed this order while hearing a petition filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd.
The court observed while dismissing the appeal: “Court does not feel that the tribunal has committed any error in allowing the claim petition.”
The Court observed that the driver of the truck did not appear and, therefore, when a truck driver tries to overtake a bus that was stationary from the left side, the driver of the truck has to be held to be negligent which the court holds negligence judgments.
The Court noted that the respondents are the drivers and the owner of the truck which is insured with the appellant which is also not in dispute. The main dispute is regarding the driving license of the driver and, therefore, the insurance company could not have been fastened with liability to pay the claimants. Hence the insurance company could not have been made liable and that the multiplier was wrongly applied.
The order reads:
“As far as the compensation is concerned, the tribunal cannot be said to have exceeded the principles as enunciated in those days. The tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of future loss of income rather the multiplier of 17 though is slightly on higher-side the dependency, the income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month which is an incentive which has also not been considered by the tribunal. The bonus has been deducted, the tribunal has deducted 1/4 for his personal expenses. The income of the deceased has been considered to be Rs.18,000/- per year, no amount under the head of future loss of income is given and only a sum of Rs.18,000/- as an additional amount is granted for non-pecuniary damages. Thus, the court does not require that any amount under the head of in absence of the appellant appeared before the Court, no amount required to be enhanced.”
By way of this appeal, the Insurance Company has brought in challenge the judgment and award granting a sum of Rs 3,24,000/- for the death of the sole bread-earner of the respondents-claimants, who had filed claim petition claimed a sum of Rs 25,64,000/- for the death of Sudhir Mohan Taneja who died in the vehicular accident and left behind him his widow and three minor children. The matter has remained pending from 1998 till date.
The facts of the case are that on April 22, 1992, the deceased while he tried to board the bus, was not successful in boarding the bus in the meantime, the truck came from Delhi Road side, which was being driven rashly and negligently and dashed with the deceased. The driver of the truck tried to overtake the stationary bus from the wrong side without blowing horn, which was driven by one of the opponents and while the deceased was taken to hospital he succumbed to the injuries. The involvement of the truck and its insured with the appellant is not in dispute, it is not disputed that the truck tried to overtake the stationary bus and, therefore, the issue of negligence has not been raised.
The deceased was 32 years of age. He was a medical representative and without waiting an FIR was lodged and the witnesses were examined.
The Court concurred with the tribunal that the driver of the truck was rightly held to be and, therefore, the Court concurred with the tribunal as far as the issue of negligence is concerned and the same and the submission made by counsel for the appellant is negatived.
The Court said the term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance.
Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which can also be accidental. More particularly, the term negligence connotes reckless driving and the injuries of claimants must always prove that either side is negligent. If the injury rather death is caused by something owned or controlled by the negligent party then he is directly liable otherwise the principle of “res ipsa loquitur” meaning thereby “the things speak for itself” would apply.
Arun Kumar Shukla, Counsel for the applicant has contended that the driver was not having a valid driving license which has been proved by leading evidence.
The Court further held that the judgment of the Apex Court titled Nirmala Kothari v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2020 4 SCC 49 (12) will apply in full force.