Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 266 (JHR)

Ajit Kumar Jha v. Md. Raju

2010-02-19

M.Y.EQBAL, PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This appeal by the owner is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in (MV) Case No. 66 of 2005 whereby he has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,75,700/- and directed the appellant owner of the vehicle to pay the said amount to the claimants. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The claimant-respondent was going by an autorickshaw owned by the appellant. Because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the autorickshaw, it met with an accident causing grievous injury to the claimant. The claimant was admitted to P.M.C.H. Dhanbad from where he was referred to Bokaro Hospital and later on he was treated at Lucknow Hospital. It further appears that injury was caused on the face, jaw and chin of the claimant which resulted in permanent disability. The respondent insurance company contested the case on the ground, inter-alia, that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence to drive autorickshaw. In course of hearing of the claim case, before the Tribunal, a copy of the driving licence was produced showing that the driver was authorised to drive light motor vehicle. Since in the driving licence, there was no specific mention about the authority to drive autorickshaw, the Tribunal held that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence to drive autorickshaw. For better appreciation para 14 of the impugned judgment wherein finding regarding driving licence has been discussed, is reproduced herein below: Now I take up issue No. 5. In this case owner of the vehicle has filed WS along with the driving licence of Laxman Pd. Singh. As per photocopy of the driving licence driver was entitled to drive light motor vehicle. Autorickshaw has been crossed by the licensing authority. So apparently driver was entitled only to drive light motor vehicle. As per Section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 no person shall drive a transport vehicle unless he is having a driving licence specifically entitling him for the same. In this case, I find that autorickshaw was being used for the transportation of the passengers on hire, however, driver Laxaman Pd. Singh was not having a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. In this case, I find that autorickshaw was being used for the transportation of the passengers on hire, however, driver Laxaman Pd. Singh was not having a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. There is no other evidence by owner on this point. In spite of service of notice owner has not contested this case. In this case neither owner nor driver has been examined. So I find that on the date of accident driver of the vehicle was not entitled to drive the vehicle. Accordingly, this issue is decided. Legal implication of this finding would be discussed later on. 4. Prima-facie, we are of the view that the Tribunal has committed serious error of law in holding that a person although authorised to drive a light motor vehicle cannot drive an autorickshaw which is a transport vehicle. 5. Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the words "light motor vehicle" which is as under: (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 un-laden weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms. 6. From plain reading of the definition, it is clear that the light motor vehicle means and includes the transport vehicle. The words transport vehicle has been defined in Section 2(47) of the Act which means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt in holding that a transport vehicle is a light motor vehicle. Autorickshaw, therefore, being a light motor vehicle, the driver was duly authorised to drive the said vehicle. Hence, insurance company cannot disown its liability on this technical ground that the driver who was having a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle cannot drive an autorickshaw. 7. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and it is held that the insurance company is liable to satisfy the entire compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.