Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Hazara and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The award impugned is the award dated 27.10.2010 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,94,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum had been awarded in favour of the claimants.

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. Insurance Company has no grievance against the claim awarded in favour of the claimants. Its grievance is that the recovery rights have not been awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the Appellant and against the owners.

Certain facts are undisputed; the offending vehicle i.e. DL-1LD-3186, as per the registration certificate shows that it was a light goods vehicle. The driving licence Ex.R3W1 shows that the licence has been granted for driving light motor vehicles. Contention of the Respondent/owner is that the word PROF. has been written along there with meaning thereby that it''s a professional licence which had been granted to the driver permitting him to drive a light goods vehicle as well. Today he has also placed on record a communication from the District Transport Officer wherein the type of licence issued to the driver (Pradeep Kumar Yadav) shows that it was a professional licence. Vehement contention of the Respondent is that being a professional licence, it has necessarily to be construed as a licence permitting him to drive a light goods vehicles as well and there is no breach of the terms of the policy as has been contended by the Appellant.

This Court is not in agreement with this argument of the learned Counsel for the Respondent. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:

Section 3 Sub-clause (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 1[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of Section 7] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.

Driving licence of the driver was for driving a light motor vehicle. In no manner can it be said that a light motor vehicle can be equated with a light goods vehicle. In this scenario, it is clear that there was a breach of the policy condition and driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Recovery rights should have been granted by the Tribunal against the owner. The award is modified. Recovery rights are granted in favour of the Insurance Company.

Appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.