(Ranjan Gogoi, Adarsh Kumar Goel and Navin Sinha, JJ.)
Francisca Luiza Rocha and Others ___________________ Appellant(s);
v.
K. Valarmathi and Others _________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 18367/2017 [Arising Out SLP (C) No(s). 21385/2015], decided on November 9, 2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The claimants are the family members of the deceased-Julius D’ Rocha, who have been awarded a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of compensation for the death of Julius D’ Rocha in a motor accident that had occurred on 16.06.2008. They are in appeal challenging the twin findings of the High Court with regard to the absence of any composite negligence of the two vehicles involved and also in respect of the exoneration of the insurer (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) and making the owner of the offending truck in question solely liable to satisfy compensation awarded.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. We have considered the facts of the case and also the decision of this Court in ‘National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh’1 relied upon by the High Court in coming to the impugned conclusion.
5. Insofar as the finding of composite negligence is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere with the same as the said finding is a finding of fact recorded by the High Court on the basis of the evidence on record.
6. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, what we find from the materials on record is that the driving licence of the driver of the offending truck had lost its validity two months prior to the date of the accident.
7. In the present case the owner of the vehicle did not contest the proceedings to prove and establish that in spite of best efforts the fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence was not known to him. What alone stood proved (by the Insurer) was that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. As the driver had a licence but validity of the same had expired, we are of the view that the conclusion of the High Court that the said fact, by itself, constitutes a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance is not correct.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, we will have to hold that the insurance company (M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein would be liable to satisfy the award and thereafter seek recovery, if so advised, from the owner of the vehicle (Mrs. K. Valarmathi) i.e. respondent No. 1.
9. Consequently, with the aforesaid modification we dispose of the appeal in the above terms.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21385/2015
Francisca Luiza Rocha and Others ____________________ Appellant(s)
v.
K. Valarmathi and Others __________________________ Respondent(s)
Date: 09-11-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi, Adarsh Kumar Goel and Navin Sinha, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Karan Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv.
Mr. Anjuman Tripathy, Adv.
Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Anil Nag, AOR
Mr. Abhilash Nag, Adv.
Mr. Arun Singh, Adv.
Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv.
Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR Mr. Nikunj Dayal, Adv.
Ms. Payal Dayal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
10. Leave granted.
11. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
———
1 (2004) 3 SCC 297
