GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 30 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 29:

1. The appellant in this case is Liberty General Insurance Company Ltd (herein after referred to as the insurer). The respondents in this case are the claimants, Smt. Urmila Joshi, mother of late Pankaj Joshi @Sashidhar Joshi and Ms. Pooja Joshi, sister of late Pankaj Joshi, @ Sashidhar arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 & 2, whereas M/S Damyanti Tea industries is arraigned as respondent No. 3.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.01.2020, passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup (M) in MAC Case No. 1592/2016. It is contended that the learned Tribunal discarded the evidence of the appeallant merely on the ground that there is no record to show that the driver was not accompanied by a person having a proper driving license. This finding is sheer result of non-application of mind. The learned Member MACT, No. 2 completely overlooked the provisions of Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which casts a responsibility upon the owner of the vehicle as per provisions of Section 3 & 4, while permitting a person to drive a vehicle. It was the responsibility cast on the owner of the vehicle to fulfill the statutory requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, before permitting a person to drive the vehicle who was admittedly holding a learner's license. This liability vis-a-vis, the responsibility has to be undertaken and proved. The learned Tribunal erroneously failed to appreciate that the insurance policy marked as Exhibit-B clearly transpired that the person driving the vehicle was supposed to hold a valid and effective driving license and the person holding a learner's license had to satisfy the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. This fact was overlooked by the learned Tribunal.

3. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred while adding 40% of the monthly income assessed as future prospects, which is against the principles of law. The deceased was admittedly not attached to any organized sector where there could be scope for annual increment and his income was not proved. It is further submitted that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan reported in 2013 (9) SCC 65, the learned Tribunal ought not to have made an addition of income on the basis of erroneous assessment. The insurer has therefore prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and order.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants laid stress in his argument that the learner's license is a valid driving license with a caveat that the person holding the driver's license has to be accompanied by a person holding a valid driving license. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the judgment was correctly passed and requires no interference.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoHouZU9tUKhh9eVu2YDzN2UecPcjBavxWT7NhdifNWAe&caseno=MACApp./86/2021&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010050602021&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.