Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1621 (RAJ)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Gajanand

2017-07-24

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. These appeals by the appellant Insurance Company are directed against judgment dated 02.05.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (‘the Tribunal’) whereby, the Tribunal has awarded various sums for death/injuries suffered by the claimants. 2. Various applications for compensation were filed by the claimants with the averments that the deceased/claimants were travelling in a Tata Specio Vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-07-TA-0085, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Harinarayan, resulting the vehicle turning turtle and the occupants of the vehicle received grievous injuries, to which, Manish Ram alias Manish and Khuma Ram succumbed, while Gajanand, Uma Ram, Ummaid Singh, Shayar Singh, Mohan Ram and Gopi Ram suffered injuries. 3. The appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim. While admitting that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant Insurance Company, it was claimed that as the vehicle was passenger carrying vehicle and, therefore, it is transport vehicle, but as the driver was holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle only and for violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable for making payment of compensation. 4. The plea raised in this regard was negated by the Tribunal and the appellant Insurance Company was held liable for making payment of amount of compensation. 5. In the present appeals the appellant Insurance Company has questioned the validity of award disputing its liability on account of violation of policy conditions, as the driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence, inasmuch as, though the vehicle was a transport vehicle, the same was being driven by driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle only. 6. The issue raised by the appellant Insurance Company is no more res integra as the Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, C.A. No. 5826/2011 decided on 03.07.2017 has laid down as under:- "46. 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. 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 28.3.2001. 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 goods 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. (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, "un-laden 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 "un-laden 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 "un-laden 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 No. 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 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)(g) 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." 7. The present appeals are squarely covered by the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). 8. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeals and the same are, therefore, dismissed.