Laxman Nebwani vs Narendra Sindhi And Ors

The matter comes up for orders as respondent No. 3 has not been served.

Learned counsel for the parties have made submissions pertaining to the merit of the appeal.

This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 02.05.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur, whereby, the

Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.30,842/- to the appellant and has exonerated the Insurance Company from liability to pay compensation.

From a perusal of the judgment and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, it appears that the driver of the offending vehicle was having

license to drive 'light motor vehicle' and, therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the Insured Vehicle was a Loading Taxi i.e. a 'light

transport vehicle', he was not in possession of a valid driving license and consequently, exonerated the Insurance Company.

While assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards simple injuries, Rs.15,000/- towards grievous injury, Rs.8,042

towards medical expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards loss to the scooter of the claimant and under rest of the heads, a lump-sum of Rs.10,000/- was

awarded. However, while totalling the compensation, it was directed that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs.30,842/- alongwith interest

@ 8.5% per annum from the date of application i.e. 09.04.2010.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue about the liability of the Insurance company is covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.: (2016) 4 SCC 298, wherein, it has been held that for driving a 'light

transport vehicle', license to drive 'light motor vehicle' was sufficient and the same was not in violation of policy conditions.

Further submissions have been made that besides the fact that the Tribunal has made totalling mistake while awarding compensation, wherein, instead

of awarding Rs.38,842/- a sum of Rs.30,842/- only has been awarded, though the claimant remained on leave for 56 days and his monthly salary was

Rs.35,500/-, for the period spent on leave, no compensation has been awarded.

Submissions have also been made that no amount has been awarded towards pain and suffering and, therefore, the award deserves to be enhanced

appropriately.

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company could not dispute the fact that the issue pertaining to the liability of the Insurance Company

was covered by judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). Qua the quantum of compensation, it was submitted that the compensation

awarded is adequate and that the Tribunal has awarded lump-sum compensation towards the aspects for which no specific compensation has been

indicated and, therefore, no interference is called for in the award impugned.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

Insofar as, the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) inter-alia laid

down as under:-

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. 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.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the finding recorded by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company, cannot be

sustained. The same is, therefore, set aside.

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a bare totalling of the amount under various heads awarded by the Tribunal brings the total to

Rs.38,842/-, however, the Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.30,842/- only, which appears to be a totalling mistake. To the said extent, the award

deserves to be modified.

So far as the non-award of compensation towards the leave availed by the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal though noticed the fact that the injured

remained on leave for 56 days and was receiving salary @ Rs. 35,500/- per month, it has not taken into consideration the said aspect while awarding

compensation. The denial of compensation for the period the claimant had to remain on leave also cannot be sustained and as such the claimant would

be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards the period he had to remain on leave on account of the injuries suffered.

So far as the claim made for pain and suffering is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards residue. The said

amount appears to be sufficient, insofar as, the claim towards the pain and suffering is concerned and, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any

further amount under the said head.

Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. The finding of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company is set aside. The

impugned award dated 02.05.2014 is modified to the extent that the claimant would be entitled to a total sum of Rs.1,08,842/- alongwith interest as

awarded by the Tribunal from the date of application i.e. 09.04.2010, all the respondents would be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

The enhanced amount payable would be paid to the claimant in his saving bank account.