Oriental Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Kamala Soni and Others

I.M. Quddusi, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 12th December, 2008 of the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Jagdalpur under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The appeal involves the following substantial question of law :

Whether the driver of the goods vehicle having a driving license to drive the light Motor Vehicle private can be held to be a valid driving license holder, if not, whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation even in breach of conditions of Insurance Policy?

Since, parties were noticed and learned Counsel for the respondents are present and Lower Court Record has also been received, this appeal is finally disposed off.

The brief facts of the case are that deceased Jai Kumar was working as a Driver. On 28th October, 2004 deceased Jai Kumar was driving Mahindra Max Jeep bearing registration No. C.G. 17 H/0451 belonging to non-applicant No. 1 and was going from Kondagaon to Nagpur. On the way at National Highway No. 6 the said vehicle met with an accident and Jai Kumar received grievous injury and he died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 22 years and he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- as allowance. The claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 4,42,740/-.

We have perused the Lower Court record and found that Assistant Grade-II namely Shri Ramkaran Ratre office of the Regional Transport Officer, Jagdalpur appeared in the witness box alongwith relevant documents and stated that the driver of the vehicle namely Jai Kumar Soni S/O Chandra Prasad Soni was having a driving license to drive the private light motor vehicle. He has specifically stated that he was authorized to drive the private vehicle only he was not authorized to drive a commercial vehicle. The driving license issued to the driver Jai Kumar Soni is also available on record which is Ext. D-1 according to which the driving license was issued on 5th January, 2004 and is valid up to 4th January, 2024 i.e. for a period of 20 years from the date of issue bearing driving license No. 7-8785/C.G.17 by the Licensing Authority, Bastar Region, Jagdalpur (C.G.), therefore, the Insurance Company has successfully proved that the driver of the vehicle namely Jai Kumar Soni was having only a driving license to drive private Light Motor Vehicles, he was not authorized to drive a goods vehicle or transport vehicle may be Light Motor Vehicle or as paid employee. Admittedly the vehicle in question i.e. Mahindra Pick-up Van is a light motor goods vehicle.

Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the vehicle was goods carrying vehicle, therefore, the license authorizing the person to drive light motor vehicle without there being any endorsement to drive transport vehicle is invalid. Under sub Section (2) of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 authorization of a license to drive transport vehicle is three years, whereas in case of any other license it remains effective for a period of 20 years, therefore, the driver Jai Kumar Soni was granted a license for a period of 20 years to drive the private vehicle which cannot be authorized to drive the transport vehicle as the license for that would have been for a period of three years only, and therefore, the driver was not having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident, and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, 2008 (1) S.C.C. 696 : 2008 (1) T.A.C. 40 (S.C.), it was held in paragraphs 30, 37 and 38 thus :

Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an accident was a "that, insured vehicle was a "good carriage" and was thus a "transport vehicle". The vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorized to drive light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since, the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, the Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation.

The argument of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, Ram Narain had no valid and effective licence to drive Tata 709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, referring to various provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having licence to drive light motor vehicle, he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3). Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make it clear that if a vehicle is "light motor vehicle", but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed u/s 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having licence to drive light motor vehicle. The licence was not endorsed as required, and hence, he could not have driven Tata 709 in absence of requisite endorsement and the Insurance Company could not be held liable.

We find considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find that the District Forum considered the question in its proper perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the category of transport vehicle under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore, required the driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to ply such vehicle. It is not even the case of the complainant that there was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District Forum was right in holding that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehicle in question.

In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Angad Kol and others, 2009 AIR S.C.W. 2747 : 2009 (2) T.A.C. 4 (S.C.), it was held in paragraphs 15,16 and 18 :

Section 9 provides for "grant of driving licence". Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect:

Form and contents of licences to drive.-(1) Every learner''s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued u/s 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(2) A learner''s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:

(a)-(c)

(d) light motor vehicle;

(e) transport vehicle;

(i) road roller;

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.

The distinction between a "light motor vehicle" and a "transport vehicle" is therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained.

The distinction between a "transport vehicle" and a "passenger vehicle" can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective licence to drive a "transport vehicle" whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years.

The Insurance Company examined Shri R.K. Hila, an officer of the Regional Transport Authority. The contents of his deposition, as has been noticed by the learned Tribunal in para 7 of the award, is as under :

The onus of Issue 2 is on Opposite Party 3. But, they could not establish their allegation that the vehicle was driven contrary to the conditions of the insurance contract. Witness 1 of the opposite party Shri R.K. Hela of the Regional Transport Authority has stated that Opposite Party 1 had licence to drive light motor vehicle for the period 30-7-2003 to 29-7-2023 and the vehicle involved is a light goods vehicle. It is contended that the holder of the licence had to obtain an endorsement to drive goods vehicles but it has not been established whether the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods vehicle and whether the holder of the licence was entitled to drive a goods carriage vehicle. It has also not been established that the vehicle involved was a goods carriage vehicle. Opposite Party 3 could not establish that the vehicle was driven contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance. As a result Opposite Party 3 has not been able to establish that the driver of the vehicle which caused the accident did not have an effective and valid licence. Hence, Issue 2 is decided against Respondent 3.

In the matter of New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and Another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held thus in paragraph 10 as under:

Section 10 of the Act provides for classes of the driving licence. Different classes of vehicle have been defined in different provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The "transport vehicle" is defined in Section 2(47) of the Act to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. We have noticed hereinbefore the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 41.. We have also noticed the notification issued by the Central Government in this behalf. The said notification clearly postulates that a three-wheeled vehicle for transport of passengers or goods comes within the purview of Class 5 of the Table appended thereto. The licence granted in favour of the said Salim Amadbhai goes to show that the same was granted for a vehicle other than the transport vehicle. It was valid from 13th May, 2004 to 12th May, 2024. Section 14(2)(a) provides that a driving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall, in case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle will be effective for a period of three years whereas in the case of any other vehicle it can be issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance or renewal. The fact that the licence was granted for a period of 20 years, thus, clearly shows that Salim Amadbhai, driver of the vehicle, was not granted a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle.

In view of the above discussions, we are of the firm opinion that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

Therefore, we allow this appeal and hold that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation and that part of the impugned award is set-aside. However, the remaining part of the award is not interfered with in the instant appeal.

We further direct that the liability to pay the compensation involved in the award is of the owner of the vehicle. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered. If the amount has already been paid as mentioned by the learned Counsel by the appellant the same may be recovered from the owner following the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, , therefore, it is directed that at the first instance the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner. In the result this appeal is allowed.