0

One should have a valid driving license for any disputing arising on the road: In Bombay High Court

Any disagreements on the road should be resolved with a legitimate driver’s license. In case of the absence of a valid Driving License, one is forced to comply with the regulation of the opposite party. The High Court Of Bombay upheld this through a single learned bench V. G. BISHT, J in THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH MUMBAI LEGAL HUB V. SMT. MANISHA SANJAY NIKAM AND ORS (First Appeal No.172 Of 2019).

Facts of the case – The New India Assurance Company Limited (original respondent) has filed this first appeal against the learned Member, M.A.C.P., Karad’s judgment and order dated 13th April 2018 directing the appellant and others to pay jointly and severally to the claimant a sum of Rs.7,11,000/- in M.A.C.P. No.62 of 2013. It was for compensation with simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition until the whole sum was realized within two months of the judgment and decree.

The appellant’s qualified counsel has presented a tiny detail. There is no disagreement on the amount of the prize. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Tribunal should have considered that the driver of the offending truck did not have a valid driver’s license on the date of the accident. In such circumstances, it should have ordered that the appellant be entitled to recover the amount of the award from the owner of the offending truck’s vehicle, which the learned Member rejected.

The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant acknowledges the legal situation and has no issue if this Court orders it.

According to the Learned Judge, According to the record, respondent no.6 – the owner of the offending truck was served with a private notice, i.e., Registered A.D./ Speed Post (Flag B), but he did not appear. In light of the pursis (Exhibit 21) brought before the M.A.C.T. during the pendency of the present appeal, the driver of the aforementioned offending truck, respondent no.7, was deleted during the pendency of the present appeal. It was evident from the contested judgment and order that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driver’s license on the date of the collision. As a result, the knowledgeable Member, M.A.C.T., could not have ignored that flaw in determining the respondents’ liability. It appears that the learned Member did not remember the preceding pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and as a result, the learned Member’s conclusion is not legally sound.

As a result, the challenged judgment/order of the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. is upheld in terms of the amount of the award. Furthermore, the order instructing the appellant to pay the sum of Rs.7,11,000/- in compensation with simple interest is set aside, and the appeal is partly permitted. The ongoing Interim Application 765 of 2021 has also been dismissed in light of the initial applications. The Learned Judge orders that the appellant Insurance Company pay the compensation to the respondents/claimants, together with accumulated interest, and that the appellant Insurance Company collect the same from the vehicle owner, respondent no.6.

Click here to view the Judgement

Reviewed by Rangasree.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat