Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2024 (RAJ)

RAVINDRA NATH v. SUBHASH NATH

2017-09-08

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.09.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nohar, District - Hanumangarh ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application i.e. 15.09.2009 to the claimants and the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay compensation. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants with the averments that one Rekha was going on foot on the road, when the offending vehicle a Tata Jeep Spacio being driven rashly and negligently by its driver struck her, resulting in, her suffering grievous injuries, to which, she succumbed. Compensation for the death of said Rekha, aged 10 years was claimed by her parents. 3. The application was contested by the Insurance Company with the averments that the driver of the vehicle was not in possession of valid driving licence as the vehicle was a commercial vehicle, whereas the driver was in possession of a driving licence authorized to driver 'light motor vehicle' only. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver was in possession of driving licence authorized to drive 'light motor vehicle' only, whereas he was driving the 'light transport vehicle' and exonerated the Insurance Company from liability to pay compensation. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the issue, on which the Insurance Company has been exonerated stand covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment 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 judgment passed by the Tribunal to the said extent deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is not in a position to dispute the said aspect of the matter. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) while dealing with the said issue, 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, '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. 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 28.3.2001 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 circumstances of the present case are covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The award dated 03.09.2011 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.3 is set aside and it is held that alongwith the owner and driver of the vehicle in question, the respondent No.3-Insurance Company would also be liable for making payment of amount of compensation. 9. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the amount of compensation within a period of six weeks to the claimants. 10. 9. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the amount of compensation within a period of six weeks to the claimants. 10. If any amount has been paid by the appellants and/or amount deposited under proviso to section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the same would also be paid to the appellants by the Insurance Company.