An insurance company cannot be held liable to compensate for an accident where the driver is driving the vehicle without a valid licence, ruled the Bombay High Court.
An insurance company cannot be held liable to compensate for an accident where the driver is driving the vehicle without a valid licence, ruled the Bombay High Court.
Justice AS Oka reversed the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) wherein Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company was asked to pay compensation of Rs3 lakh to one Mangala Shevale whose son died after being hit by a tractor.
On January 5, 2007, Deepak Shevale, who was riding a motorcycle, was hit by a tractor attached to a trolley. The incident occurred between Malwadi and Deola bus stands. Deepak later succumbed to his injuries.
The owner of the tractor claimed that at the time, the tractor and trolley were stationary at the diesel pump and it was Deepak who was driving in a rash and negligent manner. The tractor was insured for the period between February 15, 2006 and February 14, 2007.
The MACT, on August 19, 2010, directed Bajaj to pay compensation of Rs3 lakh since the tractor was insured.
MACT held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. MACT also found that the driver held a valid driving licence.
Bajaj challenged the MACT order in the high court stating that the driver of tractor and trolley was not holding a valid motor driving licence at the time of accident. Hence there was a breach of terms and conditions of the policy.
Agreeing with the arguments of MM Sathaye, counsel for Bajaj, justice Oka observed: "A tractor by itself is not a transport vehicle. If a trailer is attached to the tractor and if the trailer is meant for carrying goods, the tractor and trailer taken together will become a transport vehicle." Hence the driver, who possessed a driving licence for light motor vehicles, was not authorised to drive a transport vehicle.
"Thus, there was failure on his (owner’s) part to exercise reasonable care in the matter of allowing the insured vehicle to be used only by a person holding a valid driving licence," observed the high court. Setting aside the MACT order, the high court has asked the owner of the tractor to pay compensation to Shevale.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}