Shiv Kumar and Another vs Rajesh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—The above mentioned two appeals have been brought by the driver and owner of tractor bearing registration No. HR-16C-9269 against the award dated 11.06.2010 vide which learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short ''the Tribunal'') has found the driver to have not been authorized by a valid licence to drive a tractor and, thus, the insurance company was held not liable to pay compensation and though the insurance company was directed in the first instance to pay compensation to the claimants, liberty was granted to it to recover the said amount from owner-driver by filing appropriate proceedings. Rajesh and Sneh Lata being parents of Nishant, who died in a road accident that occurred on 08.12.2008 and Sachin, an injured had filed claim petitions u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') for compensation. Vide award dated 11.06.2010, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation in favour of Rajesh and Sneh Lata and a sum of Rs. 19,095 in favour of Sachin.

The driver and owner by way of the two appeals have questioned the finding of learned Tribunal on the question of validity of licence of Shiv Kumar, respondent no. 1 to drive a tractor, the offending vehicle and grant of recovery rights to the insurance company against them.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the driving licence of Shiv Kumar, respondent no. 1 authorized him to drive motorcycle, scooter, car and jeep. According to him, the car and jeep as well as the tractor are clubbed in the Act in the definition of light motor vehicle. He has further submitted that when a person is authorized to drive a car or jeep, he is authorized to drive a tractor also because same skill is required to drive car and jeep as well as tractor. In this regard, he has cited before me a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this court in The The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahender Singh and Others . He has further submitted that learned Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that there is breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the insured in handing over the vehicle to a person, who was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the same.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that the tractor at the time of the accident was having a trolley attached thereto. According to him, when a trolley is attached to a tractor, the tractor becomes a goods carriage and in that event, the licence of the driver should have specific endorsement thereon authorizing him to drive a goods carriage.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has further submitted that a tractor and car and jeep are different kinds of vehicles and a person authorized to drive a tractor cannot be permitted to drive a tractor-trolley. In support of her submission that when trolley is attached to a tractor, it becomes a goods carriage, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has drawn attention of the court to a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, . While on the question that a driver holding a licence to drive a car or scooter is not authorized to drive tractor, she has cited a Division Bench decision of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shinder Kaur and Others,

Admittedly, respondent no. 1 Shiv Kumar held a driving licence, Ex. R-2, authorizing him to drive a motorcycle, scooter, car and jeep. He was not authorized to drive a tractor. The question for decision here is as to whether the tractor is included in car or jeep. While defining motor car, it is laid down in section 2(26) of the Act that it means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motorcycle or invalid carriage. The tractor is, therefore, specifically excluded from the definition of motor car. Separate definition has been provided for tractor in section 2(44) of the Act. While light motor vehicle though includes the motor car as well as the tractor yet it is not a case where Shiv Kumar is authorized to drive a light motor vehicle even.

In the case in hand, the vehicle was having a trailer behind it and by addition of trailer to the tractor, it became a goods carriage for which a licence carrying specific endorsement authorizing him to drive transport vehicle is required.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that Shiv Kumar, respondent no. 1 was authorized vide Ex. R-2 to drive a motorcycle, scooter, car and jeep but not authorized to drive a tractor. This situation cannot be remedied by a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in S. Iyyapan v. M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another, Civil Appeal No. 4834 of 2013, arising out of a SLP (Civil) No. 5091 of 2009 on 01.07.2013 because in the aforesaid decision driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle and the driver was driving Mahindra van, which was held to fall within the definition of light motor vehicle. Here the licence does not authorize Shiv Kumar, respondent no. 1 to drive a light motor vehicle. In these circumstances, the appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.