Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 151 (RAJ)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bhoma Ram

2014-01-09

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.10.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Jodhpur (the Tribunal), whereby for the death of Narayan Ram, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,61,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 18.12.1997. 2. While deciding the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company under issue No.2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver Ghewar Singh was holding driving licence effective for driving Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and though he was driving a TATA-407, which in the submissions of the appellant-Insurance Company, is a Light Goods Vehicle (LGV), on account of the fact that there was no material evidence available on record to support the contention of the Insurance Company, the issue was decided against the Insurance Company. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that from a bare perusal of the driving licence, it is apparent that the driver was holding a driving licence only authorising him to drive LMV and the said fact was proved by the oral evidence of officer from the Regional Transport Authority and from the certificate of registration of the vehicle (Ex.-4), it is apparent that the vehicle-in-question is LGV as indicated in the column class of vehicle and therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to hold otherwise. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the award impugned. It was submitted that the accident in the present case has taken place on 24.9.1997 and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors., 2008 DNJ (SC) 199 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1418 ), the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has categorically held that prior to 28.3.2001, in a case where a person holding driving licence authorising him to drive LMV if was driving LGV, the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. There is no dispute on the facts that the accident took place on 24.9.1997, the driver was in possession of driving licence authorising him to drive LMV and the vehicle-in-question was a LGV. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. There is no dispute on the facts that the accident took place on 24.9.1997, the driver was in possession of driving licence authorising him to drive LMV and the vehicle-in-question was a LGV. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors., ( AIR 2008 SC 1418 ) (supra), after noticing the amendment introduced w.e.f. 21.3.2001, observed and held as under: “16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that transport vehicle has now been substituted for medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 17. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors. ( AIR 2008 SC 1418 ) (supra), no case for interference in the impugned award is made out. The appeal is without any substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 8. No costs. Appeal dismissed.