PRABHU LAL vs New India Insurance Company Ltd.

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum dated 26.9.2000 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties at great length and have perused the record carefully. The facts of the case are not disputed. The learned District Forum had found that at the time of accident on 17.4.1998; which occurred during the currency of the Insurance Policy; the vehicle in question, was driven by one Shri Ram Narayan. On the question whether Ram Narayan, the driver of the vehicle was in possession of a valid and effective driving licence; the learned District Forum gave a finding that Shri Ram Narayan was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident since the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle. The District Forum, therefore, dismissed the complaint filed by Prabhu Lal.

In support of his arguments, to allow his complaint; the learned Counsel for the appellant has mainly relied upon a judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., VII (1999) SLT 317=II (1999) ACC 463 (SC)=2000 ACJ 319 (SC). As againt it, the learned Counsel for the respondents have supported the decision given by the District Forum.

WE have given anxious thought to the matter. It is undisputed that Ram Narayan, the driver of the vehicle in question was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no endorsement upon it authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. It is also undisputed that the unladen weight of the vehicle in question was 6,800 kgs. It is also undisputed that at the time of accident the vehicle was not carrying any goods. In this background the only question which remains to be determined here is, whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the respondent Insurance Company and dismissal of the complaint by the learned District Forum is tenable in law or not ? Hon''ble the Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with in detail the various relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as amended from time to time. While discussing the definition of ''light motor vehicle'' as given under Section 2 Clause 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act; Hon''ble the Supreme Court observed that there is no definition of light goods vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act. It further observed that if the definition of light motor vehicle as given in Clause 21 Section 2 of the motor vehicle is taken to mean a transport vehicle which in turn means a goods carriage, then it would nowhere be the definition of ''light motor vehicle'' without it being ''a goods carriage''. In this context Hon''ble the Supreme Court observed that since Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act begins with the words; unless in this Act the context, otherwise requires, a meaningful interpretation is to be given to ''light motor vehicle'' as given in Clause 21 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In Para-10 of the judgment Hon''ble the Supreme Court observes : "Definition of ''light motor vehicle'' as given in Clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to a ''light goods vehicle'' or a ''light transport vehicle''. A ''light motor vehicle'' otherwise has to be covered by the definition of ''motor vehicle'' or ''vehicle'' as given in Clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor vehicle can be non-transport vehicle as well."

The Apex Court, in this background and referring to Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act further held in para 11 of the judgment that : "Since a vehicle cannot be used as transport vehicle on a public road unless there is a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority for that purpose and since in the instant case there is neither a pleading to that effect by any party nor is there any permit on record, the vehicle in question would remain a light motor vehicle."

It was accordingly held by Hon''ble the Supreme Court that when a vehicle is not carrying any goods on the date of accident and though it could be said to have been designed to be used as a transport vehicle or a goods carrier, it cannot be so held on account of the statutory prohibition in Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act unless there is a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority for that purpose.

IT appears that the Insurance Company-the respondent as also the learned District Forum fell into an error to treat the vehicle in question as a ''transport vehicle'' without there being an endorsement on the driving licence of the driver to that effect as required by Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under the policy in question the gross weight of the vehicle did not exceed the permissible limit and it was only 6,800 kgs. and the vehicle was undisputedly a light motor vehicle. Moreover, the driver Shri Ram Narayan was also having a valid and effective driving licence to drive a ''light motor vehicle'' on the date of the accident. IT cannot, therefore, be said that at the time and date of accident, Ram Narayan driver was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. Hence, the law propounded by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha (supra), applies with full force in this case. The repudiation, therefore, made by the respondent Insurance Company and the dismissal of the complaint by the learned District Forum cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned District Forum dated 26.9.2000 is quashed. The respondent Insurance Company shall pay to the complainant-appellant an amount of Rs. 2,31,536/- on total loss basis after the complainant makes available the salvage to the Insurance Company or to pay an amount of Rs. 2,15,000/- on repair basis without salvage. The aforesaid amounts, as the case may be, shall carry interest 15% per annum w.e.f. 1st October, 1993 till the date of payment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.