Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 368 (CHH)

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekhabai

2011-11-22

GULAM MINHAJUDDIN, I.M.QUDDUSI

body2011
JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company against impugned award dated 9.11.2010, passed by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 64 of 2009, awarding a total sum of Rs. 9,65,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, holding the non-applicants, including the insurance company, jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower court record as also the findings given in the impugned award. 2. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are that on 3.4.2009 at about 7 p.m. in the evening the non-applicant No. 1, Narayan Verma while driving the tractor-trolley bearing registration No. CG 06-ZD 1418 and 1419-C, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle, bearing registration No. CG 04-CY 7954, which was being driven by Yashwant and Gopal Yadav was sitting as pillion rider. As a result of this accident Gopal Yadav received grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The matter was reported in the Police Station, Kharora. 3. The claimants, being legal heirs/dependants of deceased Gopal Yadav, filed a claim case u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for award of a total compensation of Rs. 11,80,000. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the fact situation and considering the evidence on record awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,65,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy as the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The tractor-trolley is a goods carriage vehicle and, therefore, it is a transport vehicle but the driver was only having the licence to drive light motor vehicle (LMV). Further, the quantum is on higher side. 6. On perusal of the papers on record, it is evident that Rajesh Kumar Bhargava, DW 3, Licence Clerk of R.T.O. Office, Raipur, has deposed that Narayan Verma, who was the driver of the tractor-trolley (the offending vehicle), had been issued a driving licence, Exh. D2, for non-transport purpose to drive light motor vehicle and motor cycle by the licensing authority from 31.1.2006 to 30.1.2026. 7. D2, for non-transport purpose to drive light motor vehicle and motor cycle by the licensing authority from 31.1.2006 to 30.1.2026. 7. Before proceeding further it is necessary to peruse the provisions of rule 2 (b) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which is quoted below : 2(b) 'agricultural tractor' means any mechanically propelled 4-wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/or trailers to transport agricultural materials. Agricultural tractor is a non-transport vehicle. 8. In the case of Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (2001) 8 SCC 56 , Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 has laid down as under : (10) We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly u/s 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to be accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle. 9. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle. 9. Clause (b) of rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as quoted above, provides for the definition of 'agricultural tractor' which clearly lays down that the agricultural tractor means any mechanically propelled 4-wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/or trailers to transport agricultural materials. It is a non-transport vehicle. 10. Having regard to the facts situation and the provisions of law, we are of the considered opinion that if the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., tractor-trolley was having a driving licence to drive a non-transport vehicle, light motor vehicle, he could drive an agricultural tractor which is a non-transport vehicle. There is no dispute that the tractor in question was insured for agricultural purpose and the same was an agricultural tractor as defined in sub-clause (b) of section 2 of the Rules, 1989. 11. In view of the above it cannot be said that the driver of tractor was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the agricultural tractor, which was the offending vehicle, on the date of accident. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. 12. In regard to the challenge of the impugned award on the question of quantum, we are of the opinion that on the basis of the certificate of the employer, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,532, i.e., Rs. 78,384 per annum and after deducting 1/3rd for personal and living expenses, it has assessed the dependency of Rs. 52,300 per annum. Further, looking to the age of the deceased as 30 years, the application of multiplier of 18, awarding amount under the conventional heads and the imposition of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum are justified. Thus, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned award. In view of the above the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.