1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. None is present on behalf of the respondent when the matter is called out.
2. By way of these appeals, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has felt aggrieved by the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur in claim petitions whereby in Claim Petition No.73 of 1998, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- for the death of the sole bread winner of the claimants-respondents and in Claim Petition No.66 of 1998, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,28,000/- as compensation.
3. The grounds of challenge are similar and, therefore, both these appeals are taken up together. The ground on which the challenge is based is that the vehicle No.UP-62/B-5115 was a commander vehicle which was insured for private purpose but the said vehicle was being used as transport vehicle by collecting fare from the person who would go from one place to another.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in Claim Petition No. 66 of 1998 witness Sri Raksha Ram Tiwari has categorically deposed that they were paying fare when travelling in the said vehicle. Therefore, it is submitted that there is breach of policy condition as the vehicle was used as fare paying vehicle and the driver who was driving the vehicle do not have endorsement of driving the light motor vehicle as a transport vehicle.
5. Earlier when the appeal was preferred, the law was not settled as to whether a person can drive a transport vehicle, though he have driving license of light motor vehicle, without there being endorsement of transport vehicle.
6. The ground taken is that it is the breach of policy condition and yesterday I had indicated to the learned counsel for the appellant that now a cardinal principle has been enunciated by the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, A.I.R. 2017 (SC) 3668 that there is no need for endorsement if the vehicle in question is a light motor vehicle. Hence, this issue is no longer res integra.
7. The driver had a license to drive the light motor vehicle. It is nobody's case that the vehicle driven by him was not a light motor vehicle and, hence, it is held that he had proper driving license to driver light motor vehicle. Endorsement is not necessary as per the mandate of the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan (Supra) hence the said submission of the counsel for the appellant is rejected.
8. This takes this Court to the issue whether the vehicle was being used as carrying passenger. It is now a settled principle that Insurance Company can invoke Section 149 read with Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act,1988') only in case where there is breach of policy condition which can be said to be a fundamental breach of policy which goes to the root of the matter. Sections 147 and 149 of the Act, 1988 reads as follows:
"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) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)--
(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:
Provided that a policy shall not be required--
(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee--
(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or
(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or
(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or
(ii) to cover any contractual liability.
Explanation. --For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.
(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:--
(a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred;
(b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand:
Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier.
(3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases.
(4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe.
(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 judgments 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, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (l) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) 1[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 judgment 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 judgments.
(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment 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 condition excluding the use of the vehicle--
(a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or
(b) for organised racing and speed testing, or
(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or
(d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or
(ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person 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) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or
(b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non- disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular.
(3) Where any such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (1) is obtained from a Court in a reciprocating country and in the case of a foreign judgment is, by virtue of the provisions of section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) conclusive as to any matter adjudicated upon by it, the insurer (being an insurer registered under the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) and whether or not he is registered under the corresponding law of the reciprocating country) shall be liable to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree in the manner and to the extent specified in sub-section (1), as if the judgment were given by a Court in India: Provided that no sum shall be payable by the insurer in respect of any such judgment unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment is given, the insurer had notice through the Court concerned of the bringing of the proceedings and the insurer to whom notice is so given is entitled under the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, to be made a party to the proceedings and to defend the action on grounds similar to those specified in sub-section (2).
(4) Where a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 to the person by whom a policy has been effected, so much of the policy as purports to restrict the insurance of the persons insured thereby by reference to any condition other than those in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect: Provided that any sum paid by the insurer in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy by virtue only of this sub-section shall be recoverable by the insurer from that person.
(5) If the amount which an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay in respect of a liability incurred by a person insured by a policy exceeds the amount for which the insurer would apart from the provisions of this section be liable under the policy in respect of that liability, the insurer shall be entitled to recover the excess from that person.
(6) In this section the expression "material fact" and "material particular" means, respectively a fact or particular of such a nature as to influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in determining whether he will take the risk and, if so, at what premium and on what conditions, and the expression "liability covered by the terms of the policy" means a liability which is covered by the policy or which would be so covered but for the fact that the insurer is entitled to avoid or cancel or has avoided or cancelled the policy.
(7) No insurer to whom the notice referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any such judgment or award as is referred to in sub-section (1) or in such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (3) otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2) or in the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, as the case may be. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "Claims Tribunal" means a Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 and "award" means an award made by that Tribunal under section 168"
9. In this case, it is not proved that the vehicle was being used in such a manner which was in fundamental breach of the policy condition and, therefore, this grounds also cannot be accepted.
10. The submission of the counsel for the appellant that compensation awarded is on the higher side also, cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050.
11. As far as the issue of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded 8% rate of interest in both these matters which this Court feels that is not on higher side in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1011 of 2012 (Ramesh Kumar Soni Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Others) decided on 3.3.2017 wherein this Court has relied on various judgments of the apex court and held that 9% would be the appropriate rate of interest.
12. In that view of the matter, both these appeals are dismissed.
13. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. The amount, if yet not deposited, the same shall be deposited within four weeks from today and the same shall be disbursed to the claimant as more than 17 years have elapsed with interest as per the order of the Tribunal.
14. This Court is thankful to Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant for getting such old matter disposed off.
Order Date :- 29.8.2018 DKS