SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya on Friday dismissed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988 challenging the March 15, 2018 judgment passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shillong whereby compensation of Rs 3,74,342 was awarded to a claimant along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition on December 19, 2007 till payment.
The appeal of New India Assurance Co. Ltd was against Karoline Wankhar and others
The case dates to November 14, 2007 and pertains to an accident at St. Edmund’s College campus involving a Maruti Van (ML05 C 8456) in which the claimant sustained severe injuries and subsequently two toe fingers on her left leg had to be amputated. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Manna Das, helper of the vehicle who obtained the key from the driver Khem Bdr. Thapa. Police had registered a case at Laitumkhrah police station under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC. In the original application, Manna Das was named as the accused but a subsequent petition sought to implead Khem Bdr. Thapa and was allowed.
Thereafter, notices were issued to the owner, driver and the insurer of the vehicle and upon receipt of notices from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal they filed their respective written statements except Khem Bdr. Thapa who did not contest the claim. The High Court observed that firstly, the insurance company cannot repudiate its statutory liability under the MV Act to pay compensation where the insured has taken all precautions by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle in question and it is not established that it was the insured who allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person not duly licensed.
The court further observed that the owner of the vehicle had engaged a driver – Khem Bdr. Thapa – holding valid driving license. The driver had, without authorisation, allowed Manna Das to drive the vehicle without holding a valid driving license.
The Court stated that since Manna Das was an employee of the insured, the insured and the insurer would be jointly liable to pay compensation.
The court, however, said that the insurance company holds recovery rights against the driver (Khem Bdr. Thapa) who had illegally authorised the helper to drive the vehicle.
