Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1990 (RAJ)

KANTI LAL v. HIRIYA

2017-09-06

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 9.10.2012 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has accepted the applications for compensation filed by the claimants and has awarded various amounts and has exonerated the Insurance Company on coming to the conclusion that the driver of the insured vehicle was not in possession of requisite driving licence. 2. Initially the applications filed by the claimants were decided based on compromise among the parties by the Tribunal by its award dated 17.9.2011. Where after the Insurance Company filed application for recall of the order claiming that it was not liable for making payment of compensation and the consent was wrongly given. Based on the said submissions, the Tribunal recalled its order dated 17.9.2011 and thereafter, the award impugned was passed and the Insurance Company was exonerated. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that besides the ground that the award passed could not be recalled without notice, the ground on which the Insurance Company has been exonerated, now stands concluded by Larger Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.: Civil Appeal No.5826/2011, decided on 3.7.2017 and, therefore, the appeals filed by the appellant be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company is not in a position to dispute the fact that the aspect now stands covered by Larger Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). 5. The vehicle in question is a 'pick up', which admittedly is a 'light commercial vehicle'/'light transport vehicle' and the driver was in possession of licence authorized to drive 'light motor vehicle'. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) has been 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. 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. 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, '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. 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 28.3.2001 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." 6. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 deserves to be and is set aside. 7. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant - owner are allowed. The awards dated 9.10.2012 are modified to the extent that alongwith owner and driver, the Insurance Company would also be liable for making payment of the amount of compensation to the claimants. 8. The appellant would also be entitled to be refunded/recover any amount, which has been paid/deposited by the appellant under the award and/or under Proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 9. The requisite payments be made by the Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.