Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Amrawati And Ors

Gautam Chourdiya, J

This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the award dated 07.11.2013 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC,

Baikunthpur, District Koria, C.G. in claim case no. 114/2013 whereby the Tribunal in a death case has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,89,000/-

with interest at the rate of 6 percent from the date of application till its realization, fastening the liability on the non applicants jointly and severally.

As per claim petition, on 01.01.2011 deceased Dharam Sai, aged about 50 years, earning Rs.15,000/- per month as Labour and by doing agriculture

work, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Magic bearing registration no. CG16-B-2445 by non-

applicant No.2, owned by non-applicant no.1 and insured with non-applicant no.3.

On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the learned Tribunal considering the evidence led by both

the parties awarded compensation as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company because at the time

of accident the Driver was not having a valid and effective licence since the vehicle was a transport vehicle whereas, the driver was holding LMV for

non transport vehicle.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record including the impugned award.

As regards the competence of the driver to drive the vehicle in question, the issue raised by the insurance company has already been settled by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 66 3that a person

holding LMV (non-transport) is competent to drive the transport vehicle even without there being any endorsement to this effect in the driving licence

if the unladen weight of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 Kg. The relevant part of the aforesaid decision is being reproduced as under:-

Held, the effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of ""transport vehicle"" related only to 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 - There was 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 - Further held, even otherwise the Form could not control the substantive provisions carved out in Ss.

10(2)(d) and 10(2)(e) and the interpretation of the Form has also to be in tune with the Statement of Objects & Reasons and the provisions of the Act

inserted by virtue of the amendment- Interpretation of Statutes - Basic Rules - Harmonious Construction - Subordinate/Delegated Legislation/Rules

Under the Act - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Form 4 and R.14 (before and after 28.03.2001)

In view of above, this Court finds no substance in the argument of the insurance company that the driver was not having a valid and effective

driving licence to drive the vehicle in question on the date of accident as the offending vehicle was admittedly a Light Goods Vehicle having gross

weight of 1600 kg as per Ex.D-5 i.e. Insurance Policy and as such, it falls in the category of LMV and that the driver was having a valid and effective

licence to drive LMV.

On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court finds that the Tribunal was fully justified in passing the impugned award and fastening the liability

on the appellant/insurance company along with non applicants no.1 & 2 owner & driver jointly and severely. Accordingly, the appeal being without any

substance is liable to the dismissed and is hereby dismissed.