NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter described as 'the appellant') assails the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunala, Barnal dated 4-4-1996. By virtue of the impugned award the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rupees 1,92,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the award till its realisation. The award was passed against respondents Harbans Singh and Gurcharan Singh besides the appellant. Their liability was held as joint and several. The amount of the award was to be shared which is not relevant for purposes of the present appeal.

(2.) The relevant facts are that on 12-5-1994 Pashaura Singh met with an accident. He was going on his bicycle from village Chanawal to village Raiser to his house. When he was on the way in the area of village Chananwal, at about 9-00 p.m. he met with an accident. Harbans Singh was driving tractor No. PB-13-B-2009. It struck against the bicycle of Pashaura Singh. The tractor was insured with the appellant. As a result of the impact, Pashaura Singh was injured and breathed his last. Shinder Kaur, Amarjit Kaur, Paramjit Kaur, Rajpal Kaur, Kuldeep Singh and Hardeep Singh being the heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition for compensation under Ss. 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The deceased was aged about 35 years and it was claimed that he was earning about Rs. 2,000/- p.m. by working as an agricultural labour.The petition had been contested. Gurcharan Singh, Bachan Singh and Karnail Singh had been arrayed as parties being the owner of the tractor while Harbans Singh as mentioned above was stated to be the driver of the said tractor. In the joint written statement, they denied most of the assertions and it was pointed that first information report had been lodged with a mala fide intention to claim compensation. The factum that there was an accident with the tractor was denied and consequently liability to pay the compensation also was denied. The appellant-Insurance company filed a separate reply. It was admitted that the said tractor had been insured with the appellant w.e.f. 22-12-1993 to 26-12-1994. It was denied, however, that the said tractor was involved in any accident.The learned Tribunal framed the issues and parties were permitted to lead the evidence. It was concluded by the Tribunal that the deceased died on account of the rash and negligent driving of Harbans Singh who was driving the said tractor. It was further held that Shinder Kaur and others were the legal representatives of the deceased. The Tribunal with respect to the plea that Harbans Singh did not have a valid driving licence to drive the tractor held that the licence had been issued to him to drive a motor vehicle and it includes a tractor. It was further concluded that intention of the parties had to be seen. The application submitted by Harbans Singh for obtaining the driving licence spells out that he had applied for issuance of a driving licence pertaining to light vehicles. Motor car and tractor are covered within the difinition of light motor vehicles and consequently, the appellant-insurance company could not wriggle out of the liability to pay the compensation. With these findings the Tribunal proceeded to calculate the compensation and passed the impugned award. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the findings of the Tribunal but assailed the same only on one count namely that Harbans Singh son of Bachan Singh who was driving the tractor did not have the licence to drive the tractor. Consequently, it must be taken that he was driving the vehicle without proper authority or a licence. Being so the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. In reply thereto it had been contended that the intention of the legislature has to be seen. It is apparent that the intention was to get a licence for driving the light motor vehicles. It included the tractor and by no stretch of imagination, therefore, it should or could be held that Harbans Singh did not have the licence to drive the tractor.