Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 61 (HP)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. VIRENDER SINGH

2006-03-21

A.K.GOEL, NARINDER SINGH THAKUR, SAROJ SHARMA

body2006
JUDGEMENT Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd), President (Oral).: Only ground on which thrust was laid by Shri Ratish Sharma at the time of hearing was that the driver of the vehicle, namely, Shri Virender Singh, respondent-owner, was not holding an effective and valid driving license to have driven the Maxi-Cab bearing registration No. HP-01-8312. Its being insured and having met with accident are the facts which were not disputed on behalf of the appellant 2. Per Mr. Sharma, in order to enable the driver to have driven the Maxi-Cab, an endorsement from the appropriate Licensing Authority was required on his license whereby he could drive the Light Transport Vehicle (LT.V). Two other pleas were also urged by Mr. Sharma that salvage has not been returned till date. Respondent may be directed to either deliver salvage or its cost as assessed by the Surveyor at Rs.15,000/- may be ordered to be reduced from the compensation awarded. Lastly, it was urged by him that interest needs to be reduced to 6% per annum. With a view to support his submission regarding driving license Shri Sharma placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Shri Suraj Parkash & others. Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 555. AH these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned counsel for the respondent According to him, his client was holding a valid and effective driving license where under he was authorized to have driven the vehicle when it met with an accident He placed reliance on the provisions of Section 2(21) and 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. According to him, admittedly the Maxi-Cab in question is a light Motor Vehicles (L.M.V.) and its gross vehicle weight did not exceed 7500 kgs. Regarding interest, he submitted that it calls for no interference as allowed by the Forum below. Similarly, he urged that his client shall deliver the salvage within reasonable time as may be fixed by us to the appellant and in case he fate to do the needful by or before such date, amount of Rs.15,000/- may be deducted from out of Rs.1,40,553/- awarded by the Forum below. 3. Similarly, he urged that his client shall deliver the salvage within reasonable time as may be fixed by us to the appellant and in case he fate to do the needful by or before such date, amount of Rs.15,000/- may be deducted from out of Rs.1,40,553/- awarded by the Forum below. 3. We shall deal with the last submissions first So far rate of interest is concerned, it is reasonable and is in consonance with the rate that is being allowed by the National Commission as wed as the this Commission. In our view, it is neither excessive nor un-reasonable, therefore, plea urged on behalf of the appellant is rejected. 4 So far adjustment of Rs.15,000/- is concerned, we feel that respondent must hand over the salvage, in view of the submission made by Mr. Peeyush Verma. Thus it is ordered that the salvage shall be handed over by the respondent to the appellant against receipt at Hamirpur Branch office of the appellant by or before 30.4.2006. It is only thereafter that the respondent shall be entitled to apply for refund of the amount that has been deposited by the appellant alongwith this appeal. In case he fails to do the needful, in such a situation after 30.4.2006, respondent will only be entitled to the sum of Rs.1,25,553/- instead of Rs.1,40,553/- as ordered by the Forum below with interest @ 9% on this amount i.e. Rs.1,25,553/- only, besides compensation and cost of litigation as assessed by the Forum. Ordered accordingly. 5. Now coming to the plea that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. For ready reference, sub-sections (21) and (47) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are extracted herein below:- "(21) "Light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of the which, does not exceed (7500) kilograms." xxxxxx xxx "(47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Mr. Sharma also referred to Sections 3 and Section 10 of the Act supra in order to persuade us to allow this appeal with the support of Division Bench Judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shri Suraj Prakash & others (supra). Mr. Sharma also referred to Sections 3 and Section 10 of the Act supra in order to persuade us to allow this appeal with the support of Division Bench Judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shri Suraj Prakash & others (supra). However, keeping in view the later Full Bench Judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Dharmu and others, 2005 ACJ 1149. DB is not to be followed particularly when the later decision of the Full Bench squarely not only covers the present case, but at the same time negatives the plea of Mr. Sharma on behalf of the appellant. To Full Bench, following question has been referred. "When a person is holding an effective driving licence within the meaning of sections 2(47), 3(1) and 10(2) (e) Motor Vehicles Act 1988, whether such a licence still needs an endorsement authorising him to drive a particular type of vehicle as has been held in the decision of the Division; Bench of this court reported in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Suraj Prakash, 2001 ACJ 85 (HP).?" By referring to different provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, as we as after examination of the case law on the point it was held as under- "15. Viewed in the aforesaid perspective and the legal background, the answer to the question posed to us by the Division Bench, viz, whether such a person who is already possessed of an effective driving licence, authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle needs any additional endorsement authorizing him to drive particular type of vehicle, will be that, insofar as all types of vehicles falling within the definition of transport vehicle are concerned, in the fight of the aforesaid observations made by us, such licence does not need any other or additional endorsement nor such a person authorisation to drive any vehicle which comes within the definition and scope of the term "transport vehicle as occurring in Section 2(47), encompassing within itself all the attributes of such definition, including sub-sections (17) and (35) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act." In addition to this, reliance is also being placed on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 3181 and of this Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Solan Filling Station. Latest HU 2002 (HP) (FB) 659. 6. No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is finally disposed of, subject to following observations: (a) That the respondent shall deliver back the salvage of the vehicle in question by or before 30.4.2006 at the HP. Branch of the appellant against receipt and it will be only thereafter that he shall be entitled to apply for release of the amount deposited in this appeal by the appellant (b) In case he fails to do the needful by or before 30.4.2006 in such a situation, he will be only entitled to Rs.1,25,553/- with interest @ 9% per annum on this amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.6.2002 till the date of deposit/payment which is earlier besides compensation as well as costs awarded by the Forum and nothing more; and (c) Parties are directed to bear their own costs. All interim orders passed from time to time during the pendency of this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Office is directed to make copy of this order available to the parties free of cost as per rules.