Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1087 (JK)

Kuldeep Raj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2017-12-22

D.K.KAPOOR, SUNIL HALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sunil Hali (Retd.), President Complainant is the owner of TATA ACE No. JK-21/3240 which was registered as Light Motor Vehicle having gross weight of 1550 KG. The said vehicle was comprehensively insured with OP and the sum insured was Rs. 2.15 lac. The said vehicle met with an accident on 15.11.2003 at Sarore Adda District Samba. The vehicle was driven at the time of accident by the complainant. The insurance company was accordingly intimated about the accident and damage to the vehicle. The surveyor was deputed by the company whose name is Narinder Kumar. He has submitted his report assessing loss to be at Rs. 27,080. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP Company on the ground that the vehicle was driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The ground taken therein was that the vehicle was driven by the person who do not possess driving license to drive commercial vehicle. It is however admitted that the complainant was in possession of the license to drive Light Motor Vehicle. Therefore the only objection raised by the other side was that the claimant could not have driven commercial vehicle while he was in possession of the license to drive Light motor Vehicle only. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The first plea raised by the other side was that this court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter, therefore the matter should have gone to competent court. The objection cannot sustain in view of the fact that the complainant has sought compensation which exceeds Rs. 10.00 lac. Therefore the only question that requires to be determined is whether this commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the matter together with the issue whether the complainant would be entitled to other reliefs sought by him for which higher amounts of compensation has been sought. 1. Coming to the main plea raised by the counsel for the respondent. This issue is no longer Res Integra as the Apex Court and other High courts have held that a person in possession of driving license to drive LMV is also authorized to drive vehicle of commercial nature. The Supreme Court in the case titled "Mukumd Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.". has observed that, "63. This issue is no longer Res Integra as the Apex Court and other High courts have held that a person in possession of driving license to drive LMV is also authorized to drive vehicle of commercial nature. The Supreme Court in the case titled "Mukumd Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.". has observed that, "63. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.03.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in section 2 (21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy gods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: (i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2 (15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No. 54/1994. Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No. 54/1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg, would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg, or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.03.2001 in the form. (iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act no. 54/1994 w.e.f 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(9) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2 (41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle. (iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect." 3. In view of the decision of the Apex court, the plea raised by the respondent cannot sustain. In view of the decision of the Apex court, the plea raised by the respondent cannot sustain. The complainant has not committed any breach of any condition of insurance policy as he was in possession of license to drive LMV and would be authorized to drive commercial vehicle also. 4. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and award of Rs. 27,080/-together with Rs. 2500/- (towing charges) is awarded in favour of the complainant less by Rs. 1,024 as salvage charges. The complainant would also be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation charges). No interest shall be paid to the complainant. Matter stands accordingly disposed of. Be consigned to records after its due compilation. Office to follow up.