New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs R. Jayalakshmi and Another

K. Sampath, J.—The only question arising for consideration in the civil miscellaneous appeal is whether the Insurance Company can be

made liable in a case where the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident possessed licence for driving a heavy passenger motor vehicle and not

for driving a heavy goods vehicle which was involved in the accident.

The accident took place on 16.9.1992. As per Motor Vehicles Act 1988, there are separate categories with regard to licence to drive. Section

10 is the relevant section. Section 10(2)(g) relates to heavy goods vehicle and Section 10(2)(h) relates to heavy passenger motor vehicle. Form 4

under Rule 14 also provides for applying for separate licence for heavy goods vehicle and separate licence for heavy passenger motor vehicle.

It is submitted on behalf of the Insurance Company that on the basis of this separate categorisation in a case where a driver possessing a licence

for driving a heavy passenger motor vehicle does not have a licence for driving a heavy goods vehicle, the Insurance Company should be absolved

of its liability.

The Tribunal in the instant case has held that the Insurance Company has not shown that a licence holder for a heavy passenger motor vehicle

cannot drive a heavy goods vehicle and in that view, has held that the Insurance Company is liable.

On behalf of the Insurance Company the following decisions are relied on:

(1) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dhanalakshmi and Others, , and

(2) Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., .

As against these decisions on the side of the Insurance Company, the learned Counsel for the claimant No. 1 relied on the following decisions:

(1) Pratap Singh and Another Vs. Smt. Sharmila and Others, ;

(2) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lakshmamma and Others, ; and

(3) Maduraiveeran and Another Vs. Subburaj and Others, .

Before referring to the decisions, let us have a look at Section 10. (The various types of vehicles in respect of which licence to ride or drive has

to be obtained is listed as follows):

(a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) medium goods vehicle; (f) medium

passenger motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle; (i) roadroller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description.

It starts with a light vehicle and goes up in the order of weight (laden weight). After listing the light ones, heavy goods vehicle is listed as item (g)

and thereafter only heavy passenger motor vehicle figures. This is followed by roadroller. The listing clearly shows that the one lower down in the

order requires something extra, something more than what the driver is to be equipped with for the previous one. A person who drives, who has a

licence for medium goods vehicle cannot be permitted to drive a medium passenger motor vehicle. But the converse cannot be true, that is to say,

a person having a licence to drive a medium passenger motor vehicle can very well drive a medium goods vehicle. Similarly, a person holding a

licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle cannot be permitted to drive a heavy passenger vehicle without a specific endorsement. However, a person

having a licence to drive a heavy passenger motor vehicle can drive a heavy goods vehicle without a specific endorsement to that effect. That is my

reading of the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act. That appears to be logical too. At least with regard to items (g) and (h) which are

respectively for heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle.

In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dhanalakshmi (supra), decided by a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court it has been held that

driving licence produced for a heavy passenger vehicle cannot be considered as a licence for heavy goods vehicle and the Insurance Company in

the case before the learned Judge, it was held, would not be made liable to pay the compensation. In coming to that conclusion, the learned Judge

relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe and others, . In the case before the

Apex Court the driver was not holding a permanent licence on the date of the accident but he held a learner''s licence which had expired about two

years before the accident. He obtained a new learner''s licence and subsequently a driving licence within a few days of the accident. The question

arose whether the driver had a driving licence within the meaning of Section 2(5-A) and whether the Insurance Company was liable. In those

circumstances, the Supreme Court held that a person holding a learner''s licence could not be regarded as duly licensed. The learned Judge of the

Karnataka High Court though was conscious that the facts of the case decided by the Supreme Court were different from the case he was dealing

with, held that the principle enunciated in the decision of the Supreme Court applied to the facts of the case dealt with by him. The learned Judge

referred to other decisions as well in holding that a driver possessing licence for driving a vehicle different from the one which he actually drove and

caused the accident clearly violated the terms of the policy of insurance and the company would not be made liable to pay compensation.

With respect, I am unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned Judge for the reasons already set out and for the reasons to follow.

The next decision relied on by the Learned Counsel for the insurance company is the one reported in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). In that case decided by the Apex Court, the driver possessed a licence to drive light motor vehicle and there was no

endorsement to drive a transport vehicle and in the context of that case, the Apex Court held that, effective driving licence would'' mean a valid

licence both as regards the period and type of vehicle. The Supreme Court has not decided the question similar to the one arising in the present

case and in the view of the Apex Court, a light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage and it can be non-transport vehicle as

well.

I am of the view that the said decision will not apply to the facts of the present case.

In Pratap Singh v. Sharmila (supra), a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in almost identical circumstances, where the

driver was holding a licence for heavy motor vehicle and the vehicle involved was a truck and the Tribunal held that the driver was not issued

licence for driving a transport vehicle and exonerated the Insurance Company, held that, mere non-mentioning of the category of transport vehicle

in driving licence could not lead to a conclusion that on the date of the accident, the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. The Insurance

Company was held to be liable.

In another decision of Karnataka High Court another learned Single Judge in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmamma (supra), held

that ''goods carriage'' is transport vehicle as defined in Section 2(47) and a driver who had a licence to drive a transport vehicle could drive a

goods vehicle and there was no violation of the policy of the insurance.

In Maduraiveeran v. Subburaj (supra), Govardhan, J., (as the learned Judge then was) in a case where the driver of a lorry granted licence to

drive stage carriage and there was also no endorsement that he was permitted to drive a goods vehicle, held that, the Insurance Company could

not be exonerated, but would be liable.

Having regard to the above decisions and also my reference to the relevant provisions at the beginning of this judgment, I am clearly of the

view that a person holding a licence to drive a heavy passenger vehicle in the absence of an endorsement for a heavy goods vehicle, is not

disqualified from driving the latter type of vehicle, the sequence in which the vehicles in respect of which licence to drive has to be obtained, are

listed in the section also prompts me to take the view that the Insurance Company cannot escape liability incases where the driver in his licence

does not have an endorsement permitting him to drive heavy goods vehicle, but has endorsement for driving a heavy passenger vehicle.

Consequently, the present civil miscellaneous appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.