Tej Ram vs Rajinder Singh and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—Despite service respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not present. Accordingly they are set ex parte.

Heard. Claimant, respondent No. 1, namely, Rajinder Singh, the victim of a vehicular accident, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Jammu in the year 2001 for grant of compensation. The driver, owner-insured and the insurer Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

appeared and contested the claim petition. The following issues came to be framed by the learned Tribunal:

(1) Whether an accident took place on 8.10.2000 near Sainik School, Nagrota due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing

chassis No. 00D156500683, by its driver in which the petitioner had sustained injuries, if so, of what nature? OPP

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so of what amount and from whom? OPP

(3) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident?

(4) Relief? OP Parties

Claimant, respondent No. 1, examined the witnesses. The insurer, respondent No. 3, also examined the witnesses. However, the driver and

owner of the offending vehicle did not examine any witness. The learned Tribunal after scanning the statements of the witnesses and hearing the

learned Counsel for the parties, granted the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,59,200 with 9 per cent interest in favour of claimant-

respondent No. 1 and against the owner-insured and the insurer. However, the insurer, respondent No. 3, has been given the right of recovery

from the owner-insured. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant owner-insured has questioned the award by the medium of this appeal so far as it relates

to the recovery.

It appears that the insurer, respondent No. 3, also questioned the award by the medium of C.I.M.A. No. 29 of 2004 and the same came to be

dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 15.3.2004. A photocopy of the said judgment is made part of the file. Mr. Rajesh, learned

Counsel for respondent No. 3 frankly conceded that the insurance company has not challenged the said judgment of this Court by the medium of

Letters Patent Appeal. Thus the award, except the right of recovery, has attained finality.

Now the moot question for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal has rightly granted the right of recovery to the respondent No. 3 or

otherwise? In other words, the precise question is whether the findings returned by the Tribunal vis-a-vis issue No. 3 is bad in law or not?

The learned Tribunal has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having the driving licence to drive only a 'heavy goods vehicle'. As the

said licence was not having the endorsement to drive the tractor, therefore, it held that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid

driving licence and, accordingly, saddled the insurer, respondent No. 3, with liability but with right of recovery.

The witnesses examined by respondent No. 3, namely, Jaswant Singh and K.C. Sharma have specifically deposed that the driver was having

licence to drive a 'heavy goods vehicle'.

In terms of Section 2(16) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (for short 'the Act'), the definition of 'heavy goods vehicle' includes the tractor the

unladen weight of which exceeds 12000 kilograms.

Section 2( 21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, defines 'light motor vehicle'. The definition of 'light motor vehicle' includes the tractor the

unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms.

Section 2( 23) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 defines 'medium goods vehicle'. It specifically provides that 'medium goods vehicle' means any

goods vehicle/carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle.

It is apt to reproduce Sections 2( 16), 2( 21) and 2( 23) of the Act herein:

2( 16) 'heavy goods vehicle' means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either

of which, exceeds 12000 kilograms.

2( 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 unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms.

2( 23) 'medium goods vehicle' means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle.

While going through the definitions (supra), one comes to an inevitable conclusion that a tractor the unladen weight of which exceeds 12000

kilograms falls within the definition of 'heavy goods vehicle'. A tractor the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms falls within the

definition of 'light motor vehicle' and a tractor the unladen weight of which is more than 7500 kilograms and less than 12000 kilograms falls within

the definition of 'medium goods vehicle'.

Section 2( 44) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines the tractor. It means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load but

excludes a road-roller. It is apt to reproduce Section 2( 44) herein.

2( 44) 'tractor' means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion);

but excludes a road-roller.

Now the question for consideration is whether the tractor in question falls within the definition of heavy goods vehicle or medium goods vehicle

or the light motor vehicle? Neither the respondents nor the appellant has led any evidence in order to establish what was the weight of the tractor-

offending vehicle. It is not the case of the parties that a trolley was attached with the tractor. The simple case of the parties, as put forth before the

learned Tribunal is that the driver, respondent No. 2, was driving the tractor-offending vehicle, rashly and negligently and hit respondent No. 1-

injured, who was standing on the roadside. Thus it is the admitted case of the parties that it was only a tractor. What was its weight, as discussed

hereinabove, is not forthcoming from the record.

The findings of the learned Tribunal that the driver was having the driving licence to drive the 'heavy goods vehicle' have attained finality.

Now the question is whether the driver was competent to drive only heavy goods vehicle. It cannot be said and held that the driver, who is

armed with driving licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle, is not capable to drive medium goods vehicle or light motor vehicle. Mr. Dutta, learned

Counsel for the appellant while addressing the arguments has produced a photocopy of the driving licence, a perusal whereof indicates that the said

driver was also competent to drive the medium goods vehicle.

Viewed thus, the tractor falls within the definitions of 'heavy goods vehicle', 'light motor vehicle' and 'medium goods vehicle' subject to weight.

In the given circumstances, the driver was having a valid driving licence and was competent to drive the tractor.

There is also nothing on the file suggesting the fact that appellant owner-insured has committed any wilful breach in order to hold that he has

violated the conditions contained in Sections 147 and 149 of the Act.

In the given circumstances, I am of the view that learned Tribunal has wrongly decided issue No. 3 in favour of insurer, respondent No. 3.

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award, so far as it relates to the right of recovery is set aside.