Banti @ Manoj vs Veer Singh Jatav And Another

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the instance of claimant, is directed against the award dated 08.03.2011 passed

by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.46/2010 whereby while exonerating the

Insurance Company from the liability, the owner has been held liable for payment of compensation of Rs.52,625/- and interest thereon at the rate of

6% per annum in lieu of the injuries caused by the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.MP07/R1821. The Insurance Company was exonerated

on a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was though having a licence to drive the light motor vehicle, however, as the vehicle in question

was a Public Carrier (Auto), there was violation of the Insurance Policy.

(2) The indulgence, in appeal, is sought on the anvil of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mukund Dewangan

Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2017 ACJ 2011]â€​ wherein it is held by their Lordships:

“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. It was pre-amended position as well as the postamended 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 holds good and applies for the transport

vehicle of such class also and the expression

‘Transport Vehicle’ in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act 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

54 of 1994.

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, thegross 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 28.3.2001 in the form.

(iii) Effect of the amendment made by virtueof Act 54 of 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. 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 byinsertion 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.â€​

(3) Though it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has been placed for reconsideration

in the case of M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Others [SLP (C) No.27787/2017 vide order dated 31.10.2017],

however, learned counsel is unable to place on record any order staying the operation of the judgment delivered in Mukund Dewangan (supra).

(4) In view whereof, the principal law laid down in Mukund Dewangan (supra) would be attracted in the present case wherein it is held that though

the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle but since it was being driven by a person having licence to drive the light motor vehicle and even if it

may be a transport vehicle but will not fall within the definition of light motor vehicle, lacuna of endorsement will not take a right of the driver to drive

a light motor vehicle. This Court is inclined to set aside the verdict of exonerating the Insurance Company to bear the liability towards compensation.

In other words, the impugned award dated 08.03.2011 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.46/2010 stands modified to the extent that the owner

as well as Insurance Company of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

(5) The appellant has also claimed enhancement in compensation by Rs.20,000/-. However, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by

the appellant/claimant and that the Tribunal after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record having accounted for the injuries, the medical

expenses and other loss sustained by the claimant, this Court does not perceive any material irregularity in assessing the compensation as would

warrant an enhancement.

(6) The appeal is disposed of finally in above terms.

Let record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith.