- (1.) KAPIL Dev while going on his bicycle in Nangal Township was bit by truck No. PNE -5184, which was driven by Som Nath. As a result of this accident he lost his life. Thereupon his widow Mrs. Raksha Devi made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab at Chandigarh. The Tribunal accepted her application with costs and awarded Rs. 36,000/ - as compensation against Brij Lal Khera, the owner of the truck. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, with whom the truck was insured, was held to be liable to the extent of Rs. 20,000/ - only and the costs of the proceedings. This award of the Tribunal, dated 27th March, 1967, has, however, been modified in appeal by a learned Single Judge of this Court, who not only reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 24,000/ -but also absolved the Insurance Company of all liability in view of the provisions of Section 96(2)(d)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on the finding that Som Nath, because of whose negligence the accident occurred, was not duly authorised to drive the truck. Against this judgment dated 27th February, 1970, cross -appeals have been preferred by the truck owner Brij Lal Khera and Smt. Raksha Devi, widow of the victim of the accident. In L.P.A. 214 of 1970 Brij Lal Khera has disputed the findings that he was the owner of the truck and that the Insurance Company was not liable. In L.P.A. 336 of 1970 Raksha Devi has prayed for the enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 36,000/ -, the amount that was awarded to her by the Tribunal, while in L.P.A. 337 of 1970, she has pressed her claim against the Insurance Company as well.
(2.) AT the time of the arguments, however, Mr. Bhagat Singh Chawla, appearing for Mrs. Raksha Devi, stated before us that he was not pressing the claim for enhancement of compensation. L.P.A. 336 of 1970 has thus to be dismissed. In the remaining two appeals the common question for our consideration is, whether the Respondent, the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, was not liable to indemnify the insured and pay Rs. 20,000/ - out of the compensation awarded to the widow of the deceased. The Respondent's learned Counsel Mr. G.S. Gyani does not dispute the fact that ordinarily the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation upto Rs. 20,000/ -, but he urges that, in this case no such liability arises or can be enforced as in breach of the condition of the insurance policy the truck at the time of the accident was being driven by the person who was not duly licensed. Reliance in this connection is placed upon Section 96(2)(d)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which lays down that the insurer can defend the action, inter -alia, on the ground that there has been a breach of the condition of the policy, excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification. The learned Single Judge has found that there has been a violation of this condition of the insurance policy and Som Nath, because of whose negligent and rash driving the accident occurred, was not duly licensed to drive the truck. This finding of fact is not seriously disputed before us and is borne out by the evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the learned Single Judge absolving the Insurance Company from liability must be upheld.
(3.) THOUGH in the grounds of appeal the finding with regard to the ownership of the truck has been disputed, this plea has not been pressed before us and even otherwise we find that there is abundant material to support it. In the result, all the three appeals fail and are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.;