National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs NAZIR AHMAD

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 15th May, 1995 passed by the District Forum, Pithoragarh allowing a claim of Rs. 84,000/- along with interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the complainant.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant was the owner of mini truck canter 1988 model, No. UP 03/0322. It was insured. During the insurance period on 9.5.1991, it met with an accident. THE claimant lodged the claim with the Insurance Company. THE Surveyor assessed the loss of Rs. 84,000/-. THE claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company. THE claimant filed a complaint. THE Insurance Company, inter alia, contested on the ground that the vehicle was a medium goods vehicle where the driver of the vehicle had a licence for driving a light motor vehicle. THE vehicle was, therefore, being driven by a person who had no valid licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. This is the only point which was agitated in this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. It is admitted fact that the vehicle is a mini truck canter 1988 model. Insurance is also admitted. It is also admitted that the driver Shri Dinesh Chandra was holding a licence only for driving Light Motor Vehicles. It was endorsed for all hill routes of Kumaon region. It is admitted fact that he was not holding any licence for driving a medium motor vehicle.

The learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the impugned vehicle was a light motor vehicle and the driver was legally competent to drive it. We have to see whether this was a medium goods vehicle or a light motor vehicle. For this, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, Section 2(21) was referred which reads as under : "light motor vehicle means 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 6,000 kilograms."

While reading this Section, the learned Counsel for the complainant mis-read it and argued that light motor vehicle means the unladened weight of which does not exceed 6,000 kilograms. The Section is in two parts. First part is a transport vehicle or omnibus, gross weight of either of which does not exceed 6,000 kilograms. The other part is a motor car or a tractor or a road-roller, the unladened weight of any of which does not exceed 6,000 kilograms.

ADMITTEDLY, this is not a motor car or a tractor or a road-roller. This is a transport vehicle which has been defined under Section 2(47) as a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. ADMITTEDLY, this is a goods carriage. Therefore, that transport vehicle can be a light motor vehicle, the gross weight of which does not exceed 6,000 kilograms. It is admitted fact that the unladened weight of this vehicle was 3,340 kgs. and ladened weight i.e., gross vehicle weight was 8,340 kgs. This has also been shown in the registration certificate issued by the Transport Authorities.

A very fantastic argument was advanced by the learned Counsel for the claimant that the vehicle at the time of accident was empty and it has got total load of only 3,440 kgs. Therefore, this will be a light motor vehicle only. If this argument is taken to be correct, the same truck shall be light motor vehicle when it is unladened and it shall become medium goods vehicle when it is loaded. But the definition of the gross vehicle weight has also been given by the Act provided under Section 2(15) of the Act which reads as under : "gross vehicle weight means in respect of any vehicle the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered by the Registering Authority as permissible for that vehicle."

The gross vehicle weight means load certified by the Registering Authority as permissible for that vehicle. Thus, what is necessary is that it should be certified weight that is permissible by the Registering Authority it shall not be necessarily loaded, to make it a medium goods vehicle. If the load, permissible to be loaded is 8,340 kgs., the vehicle may or may not be loaded, but it shall go beyond the prescribed limit for light motor vehicle and therefore, the disputed vehicle shall not come in the category of light motor vehicle. It is also not a heavy goods vehicle, therefore, it is necessarily a medium goods vehicle. Medium goods vehicle has been defined under Section 2(23) as under : "medium goods vehicle means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle." The learned Counsel for the complainant referred the ruling reported in I (2002) ACC 281 (DB)=2003 ACJ 411, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. This ruling is of the Gwalior Bench of the High Court. In this case the driver driving the Matador was holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle. Unladen weight of the vehicle was 1,850 kgs. It is nowhere given what was the gross vehicle weight of this Matador. The Hon''ble High Court did not give any finding of its own and told that the Motor Accident Tribunal has kept the offending vehicle within the category of light motor vehicle which is not liable to be disturbed. This finding of the Tribunal is said to have been reached taking into account the definition of the light motor vehicle as contained under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act. We cannot accept this ruling unless we are informed that what was the gross vehicle weight of the vehicle. The finding of the Hon''ble High Court contained in Para 31 of the ruling also does not appear to be a sound one that unladen weight of the vehicle only has been made the determining factor to differentiate between light motor vehicle, a goods motor vehicle and a heavy goods vehicle. Its gross vehicle weight as well as the unladen weight, both are the factors to differentiate between the types of the vehicles. For transport vehicle, omnibus, gross vehicle weight is to be seen and for motor car, tractor or road-roller, unladen weight is to be seen. Similarly for heavy goods vehicle its gross vehicle weight of goods carriage and unladen weight of tractor and road-roller of which unladen weight is to be seen. This ruling cannot be accepted on the facts of the present case. It could have been accepted, had the gross vehicle weight been also mentioned by the High Court.

UNDER the terms of the policy as also under the Motor Vehicles Act, a person is not entitled to drive a vehicle of which category he has got no licence to drive.

IN the ruling reported in I (1994) CPJ 268, United INdia Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Veshnava INdustries, the driver was having a licence of light motor transport vehicle. The disputed vehicle which met with accident was driven by him and it was a medium motor vehicle and the Commission held that when the accident took place, it was a light motor vehicle. It was held that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. It was held in this ruling that if a particular licence is issued for a particular category of vehicle, then the person is entitled to drive that vehicle only. The claim awarded by the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was dismissed by the Commission. We are aware of our judgment pronounced in Appeal No. 101/2002, Asha Ram v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., in which similar matter was in dispute and we have held that the driver was having a licence to drive light vehicle, the vehicle was medium goods vehicle, he was not authorised to drive that vehicle. We have also held in that case : "In the ruling reported in II (1999) CPJ 10 (NC)=1999 NCJ (NC) page 301, Sachin Balchandra v. The Oriental Insurance, the driver has misused the licence, the total claim was rejected. In the ruling reported in 2002 (1) CPR 6 (NC), United India Insurance Co. v. Jaya Rajendra Kumar, it was held that where a person was holding a driving licence to drive a medium goods vehicle, he cannot be said to be entitled to drive a taxi or light motor vehicle. The total claim was rejected. The ruling says that a person if entitled to drive heavy vehicle, it is not that he can drive light vehicle as well, because it shall not be difficult for him to drive light vehicle, when he is already driving heavy vehicle. He is entitled to drive only the class of vehicle of which he had the driving licence. In I (1990) ACC 1 (SC)=1989 ACJ 1078, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case Kashiram Yadav v. Oriental Fire, also held that the absence of driving licence is a defence available to the Insurance Company and on that ground the Company rightly repudiated the claim. This view was also confirmed in II (1997) ACC 437 (SC)=AIR 1997 SC 3824, United India Insurance Co. v. Gian Chand."

In view of the rulings referred above and as referred in the case of Asha Ram (supra), which squarely applies to the facts of the present case and the rulings pronounced by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, we have got no option but to hold that the driver was not holding a valid licence to drive the vehicle which met with accident and, therefore, the Company has rightly repudiated the claim which should not have been allowed by the learned Forum, Pithoragarh. In view of what has been said above, this appeal is fit to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.5.1995 is hereby set aside and quashed. The complaint is hereby dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed.