Rajesh Kumar vs Mahendra Singh And Ors

The appellant owner has filed the present misc. appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 19.6.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in Claim Case No.401/2003 whereby it awarded Rs.57,700/- to the claimants.

2.1 Learned counsel for the appellant owner has made submission defending his liability to pay the award amount. In support of his submission,

learned counsel for the appellant/owner has relied upon the 3 Judges Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofM ukund

Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Reported in 2017(2) ACTC (SC) 692. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows :-

“45. Transport vehicle has been 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. Public service vehicle has been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the

carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which is also a

transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor

vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding licence to drive light motor

vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or

reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also

rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a

driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward

or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 54/1994.

Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one

class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such

vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including

transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would

be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle†in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other

provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the

category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of

such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger

motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified

by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:

(i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21)

read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act

No.54/1994.

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also

motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of

“light motor vehicle†as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does

not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight†of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate

endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued undersection

10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.

(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which

contained “medium goods vehicle†in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)

(g)and “heavy passenger motor vehicle†in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related

only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act

i.e. light motor vehicle.

(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle†is related only to the 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 as it was and has

not been changed and there is 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.â€​

2.2 Learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid precedent law submits that he was having a valid driving license for tractor and the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that a transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed

7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also a motor car or a tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg.

and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle†as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or

omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight†of which does

not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as

enumerated above.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as aforesaid precedent law.

It is an undisputed fact that in the present case, the driver was driving a jeep which is less than 7500 kg whereas the driver was having a valid

license for driving tractor, the “unladen weight†of which does not exceed 7500 kg and has been considered to be a valid driving license as per the

aforesaid precedent law. This Court perused the license which clearly shows that the license has been issued for driving a tractor.

In view of the above discussion, the present misc. appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. It is made clear that the liability shall be of the

respondent no.3 insurance company alone to satisfy the award passed by the learned Tribunal. No interference regarding the quantum is sought or

made.