Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 573 (HP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baby Jyoti

2008-11-20

SANJAY KAROL

body2008
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. It is a common case of the parties that the issue raised by the appellant, insurer M/s National Insurance Company Limited is squarely covered by a decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in FAO.No. 307 of 1998, titled as Prem Singh v. Baldassi, dated 30th September, 2008. 1. This court on 6th December, 2005 passed the following orders: "One of the points involved in this case is, "Whether a license permitting the holder to drive a light motor vehicle entitles him to drive a transport vehicle or not"? This question has been referred to a larger Bench in FAO No.307 of 1998. Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal may be listed for hearing after the larger Bench decides the question(s) in FAO No. 307 of 1998." The decision delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in FAO.No.307 of 1998 decided on 30th September, 2008 has been placed on record by the Registry. 2. The insurer is aggrieved against the impugned award dated 5th June, 2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in M.A.C. Petition No. 12 of 2001 titled as Baby Jyoti and others v. Shiv Lal and another. In terms of the impugned award, a sum of Rs.2,01,600/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants minor children and wife of Sh. Shambu Ram who met with a road accident with vehicle (Jeep) No. H.P 25-0641 on 9th November, 2000 and died in the same. The Tribunal held the owner-Sh.Shiv Lal-respondent No.4 herein, who was also driving the said vehicle to be negligent. The liability to pay the awarded compensation was fastened upon the insurer namely, National Insurance Company Ltd.-appellant herein as the vehicle in question was insured by its owner who was held to have possessed with an effective and valid driving license at the time of the accident. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act') was neither sought for nor granted by the Tribunal, therefore, the scope of challenge in the present appeal is quite narrow. Mr. A.K.Sharma has vehemently argued that the compensation awarded is much on the higher side. Permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act') was neither sought for nor granted by the Tribunal, therefore, the scope of challenge in the present appeal is quite narrow. Mr. A.K.Sharma has vehemently argued that the compensation awarded is much on the higher side. It is a matter on record that no permission was either sought for nor granted by the court permitting the insurer to take defence other than the statutory defence permissible to the insurer. Therefore the contention needs to be rejected. That Sh.Shiv Lal was possessing driving license (Ext.R-1) is not in dispute. In terms of the said license he was authorised to drive light motor vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was a light transport vehicle. 4. A Full Bench of this court while deciding FAO No 307 of 1998 on 30th September, 2008 take into account the decision of the apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 and held that a person possessing a valid driving license to drive a light motor vehicle would be authorised to drive a "light goods vehicle" which includes a "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". The reference was answered by holding that the driving license permitting the holder of the license to drive a light motor vehicle also entitled him to drive a transport vehicle. Even though it did not specify in the judgment but the court was dealing with the statute as it stood prior to its amendment w.e.f. 28th March, 2001. 5. Therefore, in my view, the driver was entitled to drive the vehicle in question and it cannot be said that he was not possessing an effective and valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has rightly held so. 6. I see no reason to interfere with the award, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.