Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 188 of 2013
Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C.
Respondent :- Sushil Kumar And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vishesh Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.11.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Rampur, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,70,000/- along with 6% interest to the claimants-respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the finding of the Tribunal on the issue no. 2 in respect of driving license of the driver of the bus. According to the appellant, Inderpal Singh was driver of the bus and his license was firstly issued on 25.7.1978, later on it was renewed from time to time and prior to the date of accident, i.e., 14.10.2006, it was renewed from 31.3.2006 to 30.3.2006. Thereafter, it was renewed from 16.10.2006 to 15.10.2009.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the accident had taken place on 14.10.2006 and the driving license was renewed just after two days from 16.10.2006 to 15.10.2009. The submission is that the renewal of driving license with effect from 16.10.2006 relate back to the date of expiry of driving license, i.e., 30.03.2006 and thus, the driver of the bus was having a valid driving license on the date of accident. He further contends that the U.P.S.R.T.C. while appointing the driver has verified the fact that the driver of the bus was having a valid driving license and the burden was upon the insurance company to prove that the breach of the insurance policy by the owner U.P.S.R.T.C. was deliberate and in view of the aforesaid submission, counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the appellant. In this regard he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2006 (3) T.A.C. 321 (S.C.).
5. I have considered the submission of the appellant and perused the record.
6. It is admitted on record that prior to the date of the accident, the driving license was renewed from 31.3.2006 to 30.3.2006 and, thereafter, it was renewed with effect from 16.10.2006 to 15.10.2009. Thus, on the admitted facts on record, the driver of the bus was not having a valid driving license on the date of accident. The Tribunal on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Iswar Chandra and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2007 AICC, 659, (S.C.) held that since the renewal application for renewal of the license was not submitted within 30 days from the date of expiry of the license, therefore, it will not relate to the date of expiry of the license and the license shall be treated to be valid from the date it is renewed. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal in respect of issue that the driver of the bus was not having a valid driving license is based upon proper appreciation of law in the facts of the present case.
7. So far as, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the insurance company has failed to discharge the burden that the breach on the part of the owner is deliberate. The said contention of the counsel for the appellant is misconceived for the reason that no such plea was set-up by the appellant in the written statement nor was raised by the appellant before the Tribunal.
8. Further, in the instant case, the U.P.S.R.T.C. is a public corporation and is governed by the rules and regulations framed by the State of U.P. in respect of appointment of driver. The fact that the driving license of the driver had expired on 30.3.2006 was well within the knowledge of the officers of the appellant and this reflects the callous approach of the officers of the appellant in allowing a person to drive the vehicle not holding a valid driving license and thereby putting danger to the life of passengers travelling on the bus.
9. In view of the said fact, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the facts of the case inasmuch as, the fact that the driving license was expired was well within the knowledge of the appellant. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the appellant that the insurance company has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the breach on the part of the U.P.S.R.T.C. was deliberate is misconceived and is not sustainable.
10. For the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Ishan