Kesri Chand and Another vs Ram Dass and Another

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the appellants u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, dated 26.3.2002, vide which the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 as against the appellants and respondent No. 2 was allowed and the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 84,000/- as compensation, alongwith interest, which was payable by appellants No. 1 and 2 i.e. the owner and the driver of the vehicle.

Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 as petitioner/claimant filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act as against appellants No. 1 and 2, who were impleaded as the owner and the driver of the vehicle, while respondent No. 2 was impleaded as respondent No. 3 being the insurer of the vehicle. The petitioner alleged that on 20.11.1997 he was present at Suwahal and respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and he knocked down the petitioner, who suffered injuries, had been under treatment and he accordingly claimed a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs as compensation for the injuries suffered by him.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. the present appellants denied the accident and respondent No. 2 pleaded that the vehicle was being driven, at the relevant time, not by him but by another person and as such he is not liable. The Insurance Company took up the plea that respondent No. 2 was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle since the vehicle was registered as a taxi.

The petition was tried by the learned Tribunal, who came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent No. 2 rashly or negligently and since respondent No. 2 was not having any effective driving license, the liability was fastened upon the owner and the driver i.e. the present appellants and the Insurance Company was absolved of its liability.

The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants were that the driver possessed a valid driving license. It was submitted that the license was to drive a light motor vehicle and no further endorsement was required to be made to drive the vehicle in question which was a taxi. It was also submitted that an amendment has taken place in the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1991 and the term �light motor vehicle� has been substituted by the words �transport vehicle� for the words �medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle� earlier existing in the Act. Thus, it was submitted that the light motor vehicle covers both types of vehicles and no further endorsement was required to drive a taxi. Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal are liable to be reversed.

To substantiate the above submissions, the learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others, wherein the following observations were made in paras 20 and 21 of the judgment:

From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that "transport vehicle" has now been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle". The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well."

The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that since the driver was not having an endorsement to drive a taxi, therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal are sustainable in the eye of law. Reliance was placed upon the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Suraj Parkash and Others, wherein it was held that since the Van was registered as a taxi, a public service vehicle and was being plied as such when it met with accident injuring a motor-cyclist and the driver was authorized to drive LTV only, but had no endorsement to drive a public service vehicle, therefore, it was held that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license and the Insurance Company was exempted from its liability.

Reliance was also placed upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court passed in FAO No. 307 of 1998 titled Prem Singh v. Baldassi, dated 30.9.2006, copy of which has been placed on the record, wherein the Full Bench had referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and Others, and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others, The observations made in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai were reproduced in the said judgment as under:

It has not been disputed before us that the vehicle was being used as a taxi. It was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, thus, was required to hold an appropriate licence therefor. Ram Lal who allegedly was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, as noticed hereinabove, was holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle only. He did not possess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle. Evidently, therefore, there was a breach of condition of the contract of insurance. The appellant, therefore, could raise the said defence.

The observations made in National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Annappa Irappa Nesria and others were also reproduced in the said decision as under:

From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that "transport vehicle" has now been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle". The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well.

Thus, it was held that since both these judgments had been relied upon by the Apex Court again in New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and Another, therefore, in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the reference was answered accordingly.

The decision of the Full Bench was referred to by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Prem Singh v. Baldassi and Ors. passed in FAO (MVA) No. 307 of 1998, decided on 10.12.2008. In that case, a reference was made to the decision of the Full Bench as well as to the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above. In the said case also, the vehicle involved in the accident was a Van which was being used as a taxi. It was observed by the learned Single Judge, after referring to the Apex Court decision, as under:

The Apex Court therefore held that w.e.f. 28.3.2001 the endorsement to drive a transport vehicle is necessary but prior to that date such endorsement was not necessary since the light motor vehicle in its definition as it existed prior to said date included a light transport vehicle. It is thus obvious that the endorsement is required only after 28.3.2001. Therefore, following the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured and is therefore liable to pay the amount of compensation since the accident took place much before 28.3.2001.

Similar view has been taken by another learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 115 of 2001, titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheetli Devi and Ors. decided on 17.11.2008. In that case also, the driver was holding a license to drive light motor vehicle. It was held that the said license entitled the driver to drive a light motor vehicle which included a transport vehicle. It was also clarified that the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesria and Ors. was dealing with a statute as it stood prior to the amendment w.e.f. 28.3.2001. It is, therefore, clear that after this amendment, there has been a classification of the vehicle as light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. Therefore, the endorsement will be necessary after 28.3.2001 and it was held in the above case also that the driver was entitled to drive the vehicle in question.

Applying the above decisions of the Apex Court as well as the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, it is clear that there was no necessity of having an endorsement and term light motor vehicle entitled the driver to drive the taxi in question at the relevant time and therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to deposit the amount, in question, in full. The appeal filed by the appellants is allowed accordingly and respondent No. 2 i.e. Insurance Company is held liable to deposit the amount of compensation in full. There is no order as to costs.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.