Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 121 (UTT)

Darshan Singh v. Govind Singh

2016-03-09

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. Having heard learned Counsel of the appellant (owner of the vehicle) as well as learned Sr. Counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent no. 4), it transpires that vide the impugned judgment dated 12.11.2010 rendered by the Tribunal, the liability to pay the compensation was fastened on the owner of motor vehicle. The ground whereof was that Mr. Dori Singh, the driver of the offending bus, did not have a valid and effective license to ply such vehicle on the road, but he had valid and effective license to drive “heavy goods vehicle”, which cannot be equated with “heavy passenger vehicle”. 2. Learned Counsel of the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Krishna and Others, 2015 (4) T.A.C. 534. In such case, this Court has laid down the ratio that a person, who was competent to drive “heavy goods vehicle” could drive “heavy passenger vehicle” as well and in an efficient manner. So, exonerating the insurance company from bearing the liability will not be justified. 3. The above ratio was fortified by this Court on the strength of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulwant Singh & Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2014 (4) T.A.C. 676, wherein it has been held that “light motor vehicle” covers both “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”. So, in such a case, the insurance company cannot disown its liability. Hon’ble Apex Court held that in such controversy, there was no breach of policy condition entitling insurance company to recovery rights. Accordingly, the order of High Court was set aside and that of Tribunal was restored. 4. It has been argued by the learned Counsel of the appellant that on the same analogy, the person who has the driving license to drive “heavy goods carriage vehicle” could also be accepted to drive the “heavy passenger carriage vehicle”. 5. Per contra, learned Sr. Counsel of the insurance company has drawn the attention of this Court towards various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and one of those provisions is Section 3, which lays an emphasis that a person can drive the motor vehicle in any public place only after holding an effective license. 6. 5. Per contra, learned Sr. Counsel of the insurance company has drawn the attention of this Court towards various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and one of those provisions is Section 3, which lays an emphasis that a person can drive the motor vehicle in any public place only after holding an effective license. 6. Further, the attention of the Court has also been drawn towards sub section (17) and (35) of Section 2. Sub section (17) defines “heavy passenger motor vehicle”, while sub section (35) defines “public service vehicle”. This “heavy passenger motor vehicle” cannot be accepted as the “public service vehicle”, otherwise the legislature could not have the necessity to define both types of vehicles in different sub sections. 7. Having heard the arguments of learned Sr. Counsel, this Court feels that while adjudicating the motor accident claim cases, the interpretation of both kinds of vehicles cannot be so strict as to gainsay a beneficial legislation and its provisions under Section 166 onwards of the said Act. That apart, the interpretation of this Court is in consonance with that of Hon’ble Apex Court in such controversy. It is the settled proposition that construction of different legislations as made by the Courts from time to time prevail because it depicts the intention of the legislature in enacting a particular Act. 8. In view of what has been set forth above, this appeal is allowed. Liability is fastened on the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (respondent no. 4), which shall pay the amount of compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, to the claimants. Amount deposited by the appellant Darshan Singh, in compliance of the order dated 8.5.2013 passed by this Court, shall be returned to him, along with three per cent compounded annual interest. 9. Let LCR be sent back.