Lisa Gill, J.@mdashThis order shall dispose of two appeals i.e., FAO No. 2533 of 1998 filed by the Insurance Company and FAO No. 852 of 2000 filed by the claimant impugning the same award dated 02.09.1998 passed by the learned the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal''). For brevity, the facts are being extracted from FAO No. 2533 of 1998.
2. The claimant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation granted on account of injuries received by him in the accident, which occurred on 30.08.1993 and the insurance company has filed the appeal challenging its liability to pay the compensation.
3. The claimant Sqn. Leader Vijay Singh Taprial sustained injuries on his left leg, left ankle, forehead, forearm and left finger in an accident which took place on 30.08.1993 when he was hit by an Ambassador car bearing registration No. CH-01-J-0638 as he was riding on his motorcycle. The claimant was an Aeronautical Engineer who retired from the Army in the year 1992 and was aged about 59 years at the time of accident. It is stated that he remained in hospital for approximately one year and was operated upon four times. He was admitted in the hospital on four occasions i.e., from 13.08.1993 to 10.12.1993 (120 days); 01.02.1994 to 14.05.1994 (100 days); 19.05.1994 to 31.05.1994 (13 days) and from 26.07.1994 to 18.08.1994 (24 days). As per the certificate Ex. PX permanent disability is assessed at 40% and claim of Rs. 20,00,000/- was urged. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. The liability was imposed jointly and severally upon the respondents to be discharged by the respondent-insurance company.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the insurance company that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation because on the date of accident i.e., 13.08.1993, the driver of the vehicle, in question, was not holding a valid driving licence. The said driving licence is stated to be valid from 27.10.1986 to 08.08.1993 and thereafter, renewed from 25.11.1993 to 25.11.1996. It is, thus, urged that on the relevant date the driver was not holding a valid driving licence thereby leading to a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which absolves the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is seen that the driver of the offending vehicle did have Driving Licence valid from 27.10.1986 to 08.08.1993. The accident took place on 13.08.1993. The said licence is also shown to have been renewed from 25.11.1993 to 25.11.1996. It is not available to the insurance company to urge that as the Driving Licence was valid from 27.10.1986 to 08.08.1993, therefore, the insurance company has to be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation amount notwithstanding the fact that the licence was valid till 08.08.1993 and thereafter, had been renewed.
6. The proviso to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. The same reads as under:-
14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.
xx xx xx xx
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.
The accident has admittedly taken place on 13.08.1993 i.e., within 30 days of 08.08.1993. It is also a matter of record that the said driving licence was renewed though w.e.f. 25.11.1993. Furthermore, it cannot be held in this case that the insured/owner was negligent and failed to take reasonable care so as to absolve the insurance company of its liability.
7. On this point, it would be relevant to refer to the observations of Hon''ble Supreme Court in
Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident...
8. A Division Bench of this Court in
9. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability in this case and the Tribunal has rightly imposed the liability jointly and severally upon the respondents to be discharged by the insurance company.
FAO No. 852 of 2000
10. The claimant in its appeal has prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded keeping in view the nature of the injuries suffered by him and the fact that his future earnings have also been effected.
11. It has been observed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in
12. Keeping in view the fact that the claimant-appellant was a retired Aeronautical Engineer, the possibility of his future employment as pleaded cannot be negated. The claimant was drawing pension at the rate of Rs. 3,249/- per month. As per the certificate Ex. PX, the permanent disability of the claimant has been assessed at 40%.
13. Keeping in view the vocation and nature of injury, the functional disability of the appellant is assessed at 25%. Keeping in view his employability, the increment on his future income is assessed at 35%. As per the principles laid down in
14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- which would sufficiently covered the compensation to be awarded under the head of pain and suffering, expenses relating to the treatment, transportation, special diet etc.
15. The total amount payable to the appellant comes to Rs. 3,03,515/- (1,50,000+1,53,515) with interest on the amount in excess of what has already been paid at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.
16. No other point was urged.
17. In view of the above, FAO No. 2533 of 1998 filed by the insurance company is dismissed and FAO No. 852 of 2000 filed by the claimant is partly allowed in the abovesaid terms.
