1. THIS is an appeal by the United India Insurance Company (in short ''Insurance Company'') against the judgment and order dated 16.1.2001 of the District Fourm, Jalandhar, by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed in the following terms:
"So considering all these, we find that the repudiation has been done illegally and arbitrary and not by applying the mind, the same is set aside and the opposite party is directed to pay the amount as assessed by the surveyor in his report Ex. R6 along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. within four months after the lodging of the claim till the realisation of amount. The opposite party has been directed to comply with the direction of this Forum within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs or in person under the rules. Record be consigned."
2. BRIEF facts may be noticed. Karam Sales Corporation, the complainant, was the owner of truck bearing No. PB-12-2159. The truck was got insured with Insurance Company, which was effective from 16.10.1998 to 15.10.1999. On 12.6.1999, the truck was returning to Mandi Gobindgarh (Punjab) from Surat (Gujarat) when, unfortunately, the shaft of the truck was broken. It was alleged in the complaint that at the relevant time, two drivers, namely, Sh. Manohar Lal, son of Rattan Chand and Kewal Chand, son of Chanchal Singh were accompanying the truck along with cleaner Amarjit Singh. After the vehicle got damaged aforesaid and could not be driven or moved at all, the same was left as it was on the extreme left side of the road. It was alleged in the complaint that after taking precautions around the truck to show that the same had been broken down and could not be moved by keeping some stones, etc. around the truck to forewarn any vehicle coming from front or behind that the truck was in a broken condition and the driver of the vehicles should avoid the truck in question while overtaking the same or coming from the front of the same. It was further alleged that one of the driver, Sh. Manohar Lal, was sent to bring a mechanic for effecting repair whereas the other driver, Sh. Kewal Chand and cleaner Amarjit Singh remained with the truck to attend to the same. The driver of a truck bearing No. HR-38-A-7303 came from behind the stationary truck and banged into it while the truck was being driven rashly and negligently at a very high speed. Cleaner Amarjit Singh, who was at that time beneath the truck died in the accident. The matter was reported to Police Station, Sirohi (Rajasthan) vide F.I.R. No. 124 dated 13.6.1999. The truck got extensively damaged due to this accident. The damage was assessed at Rs. 72,251.55, for which a claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company, however, repudiated the claim on two grounds, (i) the truck, after it broken down, was left unattended, and (ii) the driver of the vehicle did not have the valid driving licence. This led the complainant to file a complaint before the District Forum, which complaint has been allowed as aforesaid. Hence present appeal.
The question to be seen is whether the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim. The grounds of repudiation have already been mentioned above. We have seen photographs, which have been placed on the record today and have been marked ''A'' to ''C These photographs clearly show that the front axle of the truck got broken, which made the truck stationary. Fortunately, it was on the extreme left of the roadside. The ground of repudiation that the truck was left unattended does not hold good inasmuch as the cleaner of the truck died at the spot due to the accident when another truck banged into the stationary truck. In other words, the cleaner was very much there attending to the truck. There is further evidence on the record in the shape of statement of other driver that he was also at the spot and only one driver had gone to fetch the mechanic. These facts were also mentioned in the F.I.R., which was immediately lodged after Sh. Amarjit Singh, cleaner had died. Consequently, we are in an agreement with the District Forum that the stance of the Insurance Company that the truck had been left unattended had no basis to stand.
Now coming to the point as to whether the validity or invalidity of a driving licence has any relevance when an accident takes place as in the present case, i.e., when the vehicle is stationary and is not being driven at the relevant time and some other motor vehicle strikes the stationary vehicle. The appellant, Insurance Company, relied upon Sections 122 and 126 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for that even in the case of stationary vehicle driving licence is required. Sections 122 and 126 of the M.V. Act reads in the following terms:
"122. Leaving vehicle in dangerous position: No person incharge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any public place in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers.
126. Stationary vehicles: No person driving or incharge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place, unless there is in the driver''s seat a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle or unless the mechanism has been stopped and a brake or brakes applied or such other measures taken as to ensure that the vehicle cannot accidentally be put in motion in the absence of the driver."
3. SO far as, Section 122 (supra) is concerned, it only provides that no person incharge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any public place in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as are likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers. Firstly, this section does not lay down that that person who is to put as in charge of the vehicle as required under Section 122 is to be a licence holder. It only uses the word ''person''. In any case, this will not be applicable in the present case as, because of the breaking of the axle, the vehicle became immobile and stationary and could not have been moved at all excepting by a crane. Fortunately, in this case, photographs, to which reference has already been made, show that the truck was in its extreme left of the roadside when the axle was broken because of which the truck became immobile and stationary. As per the evidence on the record even precautions were taken by placing stones, etc. around the truck to show that the truck had been broken down so that the other vehicles should avoid coming near the stationary vehicle. Photograph, mark ''D'' clearly shows that the stationary truck was hit from behind. SO far as the Section 126 of the M.V. Act (supra) is concerned, the said section envisages that the person who is driving a vehicle would not allow the same to remain stationary in a public place, unless there is in the driver''s seat a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle or unless the mechanism has been stopped and a brake or brakes applied or such other measures taken as to ensure that the vehicle cannot accidentally be put in motion in the absence of the driver. In the present case, this eventuality did not arise inasmuch as there was a breakdown of the vehicle. The second part of Section 126 clearly envisages that the driver may not be in the driver''s seat if the ignition of the vehicle has been put off and brake or brakes have been applied to ensure that the vehicle cannot accidentally be put in motion in the absence of the driver. In the present case, because of the breakdown of the vehicle, it had become stationary and immobile. Therefore, under second part of Section 126 of M.V. Act, the vehicle was in such a condition that it could not have been accidentally set in motion.
According to us, if the stationary vehicle is hit by any vehicle, the question of a validity of the licence of the stationary vehicle (unless it is not parked properly) is wholly irrelevant.
4. IN view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the District Forum, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
