STAR AUTO And ENGINEERS vs United India Insurance Co.

WHETHER the holder of a driving licence expressly for a motor car or a jeep is authorised to drive an agricultural tractor and vice-versa? This indeed is the only significant question in this appeal.

THE appellant-concern is apparently the owner of an agricultural tractor which was insured with the United India Insurance Company. One Mr. Vikas Bansal, an employee was driving the tractor in question from Saharanpur Stock Yard to Muzaffarnagar in U.P and admittedly he had a driving licence for a Car and a Jeep only, whilst driving the said tractor on the high way, the same met with a serious accident and suffered sizeable damage. THE appellants lodged a claim with the respondent-Insurers who with expedition appointed a Surveyor for investigation into the matter with particular reference to the question-Whether the driver Vikas Bansal held a Licence Authorising him to drive the tractod. Shri R.K.Goel, the appointed Surveyor came to the conclusion after full verification from the Licencing Authority that the said Shri Vikas Bansal was not authorised to drive the tractor under his licence. On a consideration of the report and also otherwise examining the matter, the Insurers repudiated the claim the following terms : - "This is in respect to your captioned claim wherein the Driving Licence is confirmed by the Licencing Authority as "the holder of Driving Licence No. 26733/Sonepat/ 87-88 named Shri Vikas Bansal s/o Sh. M.M. Bansal was authorised to drive M/ Car/Jeep only w.e.f. 20.6.90. No authorisation to drive tractor has been made by this office". Further they have also confirmed, the holder of licence to drive car/jeep only cannot drive the Tractor as per Motor Vehicles Act Rules. Hence we show our inability to entertain your claim and have filed the claim as No Claim."

Aggrieved by the above, the appellant preferred the complaint before District Forum. In resolutely defending the complaint, the respondent-Insurers took up the preliminary objection that the repudiation of the claim had been made after thorough and full investigation and on the basis of Surveyor''s report and consequently there was no deficiency in service and no jurisdiction in the redressal agency to entertain the complaint. On merits the repeated stand was that the driver-Vikas Bansal held a driving licence only for the specifically described vehicles of Motor/Car and Jeep and was neither competent enough nor authorised to drive the agricultural tractor. The firm stand was that the claim made was fully excluded by the general exceptions of the policy. The District Forum on the basis of materials before it found the two certificates issued by the Licencing Authority, Ambala somewhat inconsistent and consequently examined the Licencing Aurthority was a Court-Witness to verify the position. Resting on that testimony but primarily relying on the statutory provisions, the District Forum in a considered order came to the conclusion that the driver Shri Vikas Bansal did not hold a valid and effective licence for driving an agricultural Tractor and the repudiation of the claim by the Insurers was found bonafide and valid. The complaint was consequently dismissed.

Mr. J.S. Kohli, learned Counsel for the appellant with great persistence had sought to argue that the holder of a licence expressly for a Motor/Car would be automatically authorised to drive an agricultural tractor as well. The primal reliance was on the definition of a "light Motor Vehicle" in clause 21 of Section-2 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On that premise, it was argued that since both a motor vehicle or a tractor whose unladen weight is below 6000 Kilograms may come within the said definition. Therefore, the driving licences would be interchangeable. Despite the vehemance with which the aforesaid submission was pressed, we are unable to find any modicum of merit therein. However, since the matter is of some significance and would have larger remifications in the context of Insurance claims, the submission may be examined in some depth. Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the grant of driving licences and prescribes the mode and manner of an application being made therefor before the Licencing Authority. The specific Section laying-down the form and contents of the licence to drive is the succeeding Section 10 of which Subsection (2) is directly relevant and merits notice in extenso. "(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 cases, namely : (a)motor cycle without gear; (b)motor cycle with gear; (c)invalid carriage; (d)light motor vehicle; (e)medium goods vehicle; (f)medium passenger motor vehicle; (g)heavy goods vehicle; (h)heavy passenger motor vehicle; (i)road-roller; (j)motor vehicle of a specified description."

It is the aforesaid provision which primarily calls for construction herein but in all fairness one might also quote Section 2(21) which is the king-pin of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants : "(21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the un-laden weight of any of which, does not exceed 6,000 kilograms;"

Now a plain reading of Section 2 and Section 10, quoted above would make it manifest that the last clause (j) is a residuary one. Obviously enough it is meant for specified motor vehicle which are otherwise not covered by the preceding clauses (a) to (i). Therefore, it is evident that a driving licence issued under this Clause (j) for a motor vehicle of a specified description would entitle the holder thereof to drive a vehicle of that description only and not any other at all. To emphasise the driving licence of this nature is confined to the description of the vehicle in the licence and cannot possibly be extended and carried beyond the specified vehicle. It would be doing voilence to the language of the statute if a specified motor vehicle is construed as including many other vehicles of a different description within it. To repeat a vehicle of a specified descriplion is particularised and it would be wholly impermissible to bring any other vehicle or any other classes of vehicles within its ambit which do not in terms fit in the specific description. To concretise as in the present case a licence granted for a motor car and jeep is confined to the said two vehicles only and cannot possibly be extended to an omni-bus or an agricultural tractor or road-rollers of less than 6000 kilograms. Holding so would plainly be contrary to both the letter and the spirit of Sub-section (2) of Section 10.

AGAIN on a larger perspective clauses (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) & (h) are broadly descriptive of a class of motor vehicles for which the licence is issued. It is only if the licence is issued under those clauses that one may perhaps travel to find out as to which motor vehicle would come within the ambit of the licence granted under the said clauses, either with regard to the definition thereof under Sub-section (2) earlier, or generically. These clauses are patently distinct or separate from the last residuary clause (j) which would provide for a licence of a vehicle of specified description only and not for any class of vehicles generically. In construing Sub-section (2) of Section 10 one has to remind oneself of the sound canon of construction that every clause or part of a statutory provision has to be given a meaning and no part thereof is to be construed as redundant or otiose. Clause (d) which pertains to light motor vehicles is, therefore, separate and distinct from clause (j) which pertains to vehicles of specific description only. These two clauses are not to be equatted as either identical or interchangeable with each other. Holding so would be rendering either one of them as redundant or otiose. Each one of its clauses are plainly intended by the legislature to cover a different class or a particularised motor vehicles.

IN all fairness one must notice Mr. Kohli''s attempted reliance on the application forms for securing driving licence or even his allegations with regard to a particular vehicle which may be taken by the applicant before the Motor Vehicles INspector in the relevant test. Such a submision has only to be noticed and rejected. It is somewhat elementary that the form for an application of a licence whether printed or otherwise cannot possibly govern the construction of a statutory provision like Sub-section (2) of Section 10 which has to be interpreted only on the language employed therein. What is relevant and paramount is the licence granted under Sub-section (2) and not the nature or the mode of application for securing the same. It is obvious that the Licensing Authority on the basis of an application may grant or refuse the same or hold the applicant fit for driving only a particular class of vehicles or a vehicle of specified description. To put it tersely the application seems to be of no relevance when the licence has been actually granted under one or the other clauses of Subsection (2) of Section 10. Equally the vehicle which the applicant may choose to take for the test before the INspector or which the latter may choose to test his ability is not in any way a matter germane to the question of the licence actually granted later. The learned Counsel for the appellant''s submission appears to us as suffering from an inherent fallacy. It is common ground that the driver herein was not granted the licence under clause (d) for driving a light motor vehicle. Had it been so, then alone it was arguable as to whether a tractor or road-roller or omni-bus or such transport vehicles would or would not come within its ambit. It is only in such a situation that clause (21) of Section 2 would come into play and be relevant. However, herein the licence has been granted under clause (j) for the vehicles of specified description being a jeep and a car. Consequently the definition of the light motor vehicles has no relevance to such a licence. It would be obviously illogical to say that an agricultural tractor fits into the specified description of a motor car or a jeep. The view we are inclined to take on a incisive interpretation of Section 10 is equally borne out by the precedent in 1985 Accident Claims Journal 815, Balli Singh v. Sushil Singhal and Others, upon which somewhat curiously a tenous reliance was placed by Mr. Kohli also. However the ratio of that judgment is clear and categoric in the terms following in para 6 of the reported citation. "The argument of the Counsel for the appellant in this behalf was that as both the motor car and a tractor fell within the definition of light motor vehicle'' in Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a licence for either was a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and thus covered the other vehicles too comprised therein. This indeed is a contention wholly devoid of merit. A motor car has been separately and specifically defined in Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act as excluding a tractor. It would be going clearly against the legislative intent to hold that the licence for motor car is also to be construed as a licence for a tractor. It is significant to note that what has been defined as a light motor vehicle'' in Section 2(13) of Motor Vehicles Act, is a transport vehicle below a certain weight."

It is somewhat manifest that the aforesaid observations precedentaly conclude the matter against the appellant as well.

IN the light of the aforesaid discussion, on the language of Sections 9 & 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and of percedent, it follows that Mr. J.S. Kohli''s stand that a person holding the licence specifically for a car or a jeep would be authorised to drive any or every light motor vehicles and in particular an agricultural tractor is patently fallacious.

BEFORE parting with this order one might as well view the question on larger principle also, apart from the precise language of the statute. If it is once held that a person holding a driving licence expressly for a motor car or a jeep is authorised to drive an agricultural tractor it would logically follow that a person holding merely a licence for an agricultural tractor would in the reverse be entitled to drive a high power motor car or a jeep as well. One can take judicial note of the fact that agricultural tractors have the maximum speed of 20 Kms. per hour or thereabout and are otherwise rudimentary vehicles. A person competent to drive an agricultural tractor can hardly be conceived as capable of driving a high powered motor car which may have speeds ranging to a maximum 200 kms. It is elementary that driving such a car in highly trafficked area needs great practice and expertise. Can it be said that a person used to drive an agricultural tractor in his village is authorised or competent to drive a high powered motor car in the crowded & trafficked areas of a metropolitan city. The answer has obviously to be in the negative. It is equally a settled canon of construction that even where well matching interpretations are possible, one which is likely to result in public mischief or anamolous results in practice must necessarily be avoided. On that larger principle also the stand of the learned Counsel for the appellant has to be repelled. What then deserves highlighting also is the fact that the Licencing Authority has also categorically stated that the driver in the case was authorised to drive a motor car/jeep only and no authorisation was made by that office to drive a tractor. It was further clarified that the holder of a licence to drive the car/jeep only cannot drive the tractor as per the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.

Yet again, the respondent-Insurance Company had taken more than sufficient steps to come to this conclusion and as such no blame or any deficiency in service can be laid at their door.

TO finally conclude the answer to the question posed at the outset has to be rendered in the negative. It is held that the holder of a driving licence expressly for a motor car or a jeep is not authorised to drive an agricultural tractor or vice-versa. Once the aforesaid conclusion has been arrived at it is obvious that the present appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, we refrain from burdening the appellant-consumer with any costs. Appeal dismissed.