Heard Sri Archit Mehrotra learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
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.
Prayer is allowed. He may do so during the course of day. Office is directed to make necessary correction in the office record.
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.
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. The claimant is about 24 years and was working in Panchayat department and was drawing a salary of Rs. 11,000/- as government servant.
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.
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.
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.
On issue no. 2, it was found that the tanker driver was having valid registration certificate and road permit.
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.
Issue no. 3 as decided by the learned tribunal is quoted as under:
"fuLrkj.k okn fcUnq la[;k&3 1& ;g okn fcUnq bl vk'k; dk fufeZr gqvk gS fd D;k dfFkr nq?kZVuk ds le; Vsadj la0&;w0ih021 ,u&1123 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k Mh0,y0 ugha Fkk 2& bl lEcU/k esa foi{kh la0&2 chek da0 dh vksj ls vius mRrj i= esa rn~uqlkj dFku fd;s x;s gSA 3& bl lEcU/k esa iz'uxr okgu ds [email protected]{kh la0&1 }kjk lwph 17&d ls iz'uxr okgu ds pkyd lrh'k dqekj iq= Hkwdu lju ds Mh0,y0 dh QksVksLVsV izfr 20&x nf[ky dh x;h gSA ftlds vuqlkj ;g eqjknkckn dk cuk gSA ftldk uacj gS& [email protected],[email protected],u0Vh0/96 rFkk tkjh djus dk fnukad 05&8&96 gSA tks ,y0,e0oh0 izkbZosV ds fy;s gSA ysfdu ;g VkliksVZ Oghdy o iSalstj Oghdy ds fy;s Hkh oS/k gksuk vafdr gSA ;g 19&5&2011 rd rFkk rRi'pkr 19&7&2011 ls 18&5&2014 rd ds fy;s oS/k gksuk vafdr gSA bl izdj.k esa nq?kZVuk dk fnukad 27&4&2011 gSA 4& bl lEcU/k esa foi{kh la0&2 chek da0 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius }kjk lwph 138&x ls nkf[ky vius bUoSfLVxsVj ,l0ds0 vxzoky dh fjiksVZ dh Nk;k izfr 140&[email protected] o QkeZ 54 dh Nk;k izfr 140&[email protected] rFkk Mh0MCyw0&1 ds :i esa ijhf{kr djk;s x;s vius iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh Jh 'kSysUnz d`".k oekZ ds c;ku dh vksj vf/kdj.k dk /;ku vkdf"kZr djrs gq;s rdZ fn;k gS fd bl MkbZfoax ykbZlsal ij eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&14 ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqikyu esa Dangerous & Hazardous goodsds fy;s oS/k gksus dk i`"Bkadu ughs gSA bl vk/kkj ij ;g MkbZfoax ykbZlasl fof/kd :i ls oS/k gksuk ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA bl izdkj ;g rR; lkfcr gS fd dfFkr nq?kZVuk ds fnukad o le; ij iz'uxr okgu chek ikfylh dh 'krksZa ds mYya?ku essa pyk;k tk jgk FkkA bl lEcU/k esa mUgksaus fuEufyf[kr fofu.kZ; izLrqr fd;k gSA U; bf.M;k ,';ksjsal da0 fy0 cuke vuckykxu vkfn 2010 ¼1½ Vh0,0lh0&173 ¼enzkl½ bl fofu.kZ esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd ;fn MkbZfoax ykbZlsal ij gSoh Oghdy ¼VSDVj½ pykus dk i`"Bkadu ugha gS rks mls oS/k MkbZfoax ykbZlsal gksuk ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA 5& ;kph o foi{kh la0&1 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us bl rdksZa dk [k.Mu fd;k gSA foi{kh la0&1 dh vksj ls fuEufyf[kr fofu.kZ; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS cyohj flag cuke Jherh 'kksHkk d';i] 2008 ¼2½ Vh0,0lh0&160 ¼mRrjk[k.M½ bl fofu.kZ; esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd fu;e&193 eksVj okgu fu;ekoyh ds lUnHkZ esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd ;fn fdlh MzkbZfoax ykbSlsUl ij fgy jksMl~ dk i`"Bkadu ugha gS rks bl vk/kkj ij og voS/k ugha gks tkrk gSA 6& bl lEcU/k esa eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&14 ¼2½ ¼d½ ds ijUrqd esa ;g izkfo/kku fd;k x;k gS fd&^^ ijUrq ;g fd vuqKfIr/kkjh ds ekeys esa] tks ml vuqKfIr ij [krjukd ;k tksf[ke Hkjk eky ;ku pykrk gS] ogkW ,slh vuqKfIr ,d o"kZ gsrq izHkkoh jgsxhA mldk uohfudj.k ,slh 'krZ ds v/;k/khu gksxk fd ,sls pkyd fofgr ikB~;dze dk ,d fnol dk iqu'pZ;k izf'k{k.k iw.kZ dj ysxkA^^ 7& izLrqr izdj.k esa nq?kZVuk dkfjr djus okyk okgu Vsadj gS tks fd iSVzksy @Mhty ykus ys tkus ds fy, iz;qDr gSA eksVj okgu fu;ekoyh dh lkj.kh&3 ds vuqlkj og [krjukd ;k tks[ke Hkjs eky;ku dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA foi{kh la0&1 ds iz'uxr okgu @Vsadj ds pkyd lrh'k dqekj ds MzkbZfoax ykbZlsal dh QksVks izfr 20&x i=koyh ij nkf[ky GS tks 19&5&2011 ls 18&5&2014 rd ds fy, oS/k gksuk vafdr gSA bl izdkj ;g MzkbZfoax ykbZlsal ,d lkFk rhu o"kZ ds fy;s uohuhd`r gqvk gSA bl izdkj og /kkjk&14 ¼2½¼d½ ds ijUrqd ds mDr izkfo/kkuksa ds vuq:i ,d o"kZ ds fy;s uohuhd`r ugh gSA bl /kkjk ds ;g izkfo/kku vkKkid gSaA bl vk/kkj ij vf/kdj.k ds fu"d"kZ esa izLrqr MzkbZfoax ykbZlsal dkxt la[;k 20&d [krjukd ;k tksf[ke Hkjs eky;ku dks pykus ds fy;s oS/k gksuk ugh dgk tk ldrk gSA bl izdkj foospu o miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vf/kdj.k ds fu"d"kZ esa nq?kZVuk dh vafdr fnukWd o le; ij iz'uxr okgu ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k o izHkkoh MzkbZfoax ykbZlsal ugha FkkA okn fcUnq la0&3 rn~uqlkj fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 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 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.
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:
Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry."
(Emphasis supplied) 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)...................
(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) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 sub-section (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 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) 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
No other issue is pressed before this Court.
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.
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.
Order Date :- 9.5.2016 Abhishek