Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India
Malla Prakasarao vs Malla Janaki And Ors. on 6 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: I (2006) ACC 300, SCSuppl 2004 (4) CHN 114
Bench: V Khare, S V.Patil, A Bhan
ORDER
CA No. 1613 of 1996
1. It is not disputed that the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle had expired on 20-11-1982 and the
driver did not apply for renewal within thirty days of the expiry of the said licence, as required under Section
11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is also not disputed that the driver of the vehicle did not have driving
licence when the accident took place. According to the terms of the contract, the Insurance Company has no
liability to pay any compensation where an accident takes place by a vehicle, driven by a driver without a
driving licence. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal.
2. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
CAs Nos. 4661-84 of 2002 @ SLPs (Civil) Nos. 1084, 6799-6815 of 1998 and 3263-68 of 1999
3. Leave granted.
4. We have heard counsel for the appellant.
5. On 2-11-1990, a stage carriage belonging to Haryana State Roadways Transport Corporation met in an
accident with a tempo which was carrying passengers. As a result of the said accident, eight passengers
travelling in the tempo died and several other passengers received injuries. Subsequently, the dependants of
the deceased and the injured persons filed separate petitions for compensation before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal (found that the aforesaid accident took place due to negligence of the driver of
the vehicle owned by Haryana State Roadways Transport Corporation and, therefore, fastened the liability of
compensation on the Corporation. The Tribunal awarded different amounts of compensation to different
dependants of the deceased and the injured. Aggrieved, the State of Haryana and another preferred appeals
before the High Court, but the same were dismissed. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the
appellants have come up to this Court.
6. Learned counsel urged that the appeals of the appellants were dismissed without considering the evidence
on record and the same, therefore, deserve to be set aside. We do not find any merit in the contention.
Admittedly, the appellants led no evidence before the Tribunal and, therefore, they cannot make any grievance
that the evidence was not considered by the High Court. No other point was pressed.
7. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
CA No. 28 of 2000
8. The appellants herein are the wife and children of the deceased, who died in a motor accident. The
deceased, a qualified doctor, was in government service. The appellants filed a claim petition before the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,03,850 and a
sum of Rs. 86,000 on other heads. The claimants were not satisfied with the award of compensation, therefore,
preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court found that the income of the deceased was Rs.
40,000 per annum and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount, total dependency was Rs. 27,000. The High Court
by applying the multiplier of 14, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,78,000 from Rs. 2,03,850 along with
interest at the rate of 12 per cent. The claimants, still not satisfied with the award of compensation, have come
Malla Prakasarao vs Malla Janaki And Ors. on 6 August, 2002
Indian Kanoon - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1552677/ 1
