AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellants, driver and owner, have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’) challenging the
findings on particular Issue No.3, recorded in judgment and award dated 08.08.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh (for
short, ‘learned Tribunal’). The learned Tribunal, while quantifying and awarding compensation to the respondent-claimants, has exonerated the
insurer from its liability.
The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that on 24.07.2004, Babulal and Satpal, Driver & Khalasi of Tempo-Trax No. RJ-35-G-0063
were in the vehicle heading towards Pratapgarh from Khootgarh. The vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by Driver Babulal, which led to
opening of the side gate of Tempo and Khalasi Satpal fell out of the vehicle. He suffered grave and serious injuries and was admitted in Govt. Hospital
Pratapgarth for treatment. During treatment, Khalasi Satpal succumbed to the injuries. As per version of the respondent-claimants, Satpal was 35
years old at the time of accident and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. In the claim petition, respondent quantified total amount of compensation to
the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- under different heads. The claim petition was contested by driver and owner of the vehicle taking stand that the accident
occurred as Satpal was sitting near the gate of Tempo and he fell out of Tempo on account of opening of the gate suddenly. The claim petition was
contested by the Insurer and it was pleaded on its behalf that the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, settled three issues for determination. For substantiating their claim, on behalf of respondent-claimants
three witnesses appeared in the witness box, besides tendering seven documents. The non-claimants examined three witness and also tendered three
documents. Learned Tribunal decided Issue No.1 relating to rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle in favour of claimants. While adverting to
Issue No.3, learned Tribunal has partly allowed the same in favour of insurer. Learned Tribunal has found that at the time of accident, the driver was
not in possession of a valid driving licence to ply heavy goods vehicles, as such directed the insurance Company first pay compensation amount to the
claimants and then recover the same from owner and driver of the offending vehicle. While switching on to Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal worked
out compensation for loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,97,840/-. In totality, learned Tribunal assessed total amount of compensation to the tune
of Rs.3,07,340/-. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in deciding Issue No.3 regarding violation of
the conditions of insurance policy. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the issue involved in the matter has already been set at rest by
the Larger Bench of Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2017) 14 SCC 663].
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-insurer submits that the driver of insured vehicle was not having licence to ply heavy goods
vehicle but holding the licence to ply LMV. He, therefore, submits that the instant appeal, being bereft of any merit, is liable to be rejected.
I have considered the submissions made at Bar, perused the impugned judgment & award and also scanned record of the case.
Upon examining the judgment in case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), there remains no quarrel that a transport vehicle, as per weight prescribed in
Section 2(21) read with Section 2(15) & 2(48) includes an “omnibusâ€, as the gross weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. The Court
further held that holder of a driving licence to drive the class of “light motor vehicle†as provided in Section 10(2)(d) would be 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 roadroller, the
“unladen weight†of which does not exceed 7500 kg. The Court held: “Prior to amendment in 1994 licence for transport vehicle was clearly
covered as per Section 10(2)in five categories, i.e., Section 10(2)
(d) light motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(e) medium goods vehicle, Section 10(2)(f) medium passenger motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(g) heavy goods
vehicle and Section 10(2)(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle. The licence for ‘light motor vehicle’ has been provided in section 10(2)(d). The
expression ‘transport vehicle’ has been inserted by virtue of Amendment Act 54/1994 in Section 10(2)
(e) after deleting four categories or classes of vehicles, i.e. medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, and heavy
passenger motor vehicle. Earlier Section 10 did not contain the separate class of transport vehicles.
The definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ makes it clear that for a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a
motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kgs. ‘Gross vehicle weight’ has been defined in
section 2(15). The motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as defined in Section 2(48) of the
Act, are also the light motor vehicle. No change has been made by Amendment Act of 54/94 in the provisions contained in Sections 2(21) and 10(2)
(d) relating to the light motor vehicle. The definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with Section 10(2)
(d) which makes it abundantly clear that ‘light motor vehicle’ is also a ‘transport vehicle’, the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of
which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as specified in the provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle,
transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as specified in Section 2(21) of the
Act. The provision of Section 3 of the Act requires that a person in order to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ must have authorization. Once a licence
is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or
motor car, road roller or tractor, the unladen weight of which, as the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg. The insertion of ‘transport vehicle’
category in Section 10(2)(e) has no effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of the class of light motor vehicle. A
distinction is made in the Act of heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on
the basis of ‘gross vehicle weight’ or ‘unladen weight’ for heavy passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, the weight, as the case
may be, exceed 12000 kg. Medium goods vehicle shall mean any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle; whereas
‘medium passenger motor vehicle’ means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a
motorcycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle.
Thus, the newly incorporated expression ‘transport vehicle’ in section 10(2)(e) would include only the vehicles of the category as defined in
Section 2(16) - heavy goods vehicle, Section 2(17) - heavy passenger motor vehicle, Section 2(23) â€" medium goods vehicle and Section 2(24)
medium passenger motor vehicle, and would not include the ‘light motor vehicle’ which means transport vehicle also of the weight specified in
Section 2(21).†In a later judgment rendered by Supreme Court dated 06.03.2018 (Jagdish Kumar Sood V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
- Civil Appeal No.240/2017) same view is reiterated.
Thus, relying on judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra), impugned award to the extent of finding on Issue No.3 absolving insurance company is set
aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the liability to pay compensation shall jointly and severally be fastened on the insurer in addition to the
owner and driver.
There shall be no order as to costs.