United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs R.RAMAKRISHNA

M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which was opposite party before the District Forum, Mandya, has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 17.9.1996 passed in MDF/Com. No. 73/95 directing it to pay a total sum of Rs. 32,000/- in all with interest at 12% p.a. from 1.7.1994 till the payment to the complainant.

THE complainant was the owner of the tractor with trailer bearing registration No. KA-11/735 and 736 and was driving the said tractor himself for the purpose of cultivation of his land, had insured the same with United India Insurance Company, Mandya. On 7.3.1994, the said vehicle met with an accident by dashing against a roadside tree while trying to avoid a collusion with a motor cycle coming in the opposite direction and was badly damaged. This fact was intimated to the police and to the opposite party-the Insurance Company. A Mahajar was drawn out by the police. A Surveyor of the opposite party visited the spot and furnished his report regarding estimation of the damage. On the recommendation of the Surveyor, the complainant got it repaired at B.N. Auto Service and paid the entire repair charges and preferred a claim petition furnishing all the necessary documents, but the Company repudiated the said claim on 8.7.1994. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint on 16.9.1995 claiming a sum of Rs. 1,64,108.50 with interest and costs. On receipt of the notice from the District Forum, the opposite party filed its written version contending that the complainant as a driver had only a driving licence to drive motor-cycle and a tractor and did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive tractor with trailer and as such repudiated the claim. It requested the District Forum to dismiss the complaint.

On the basis of the materials placed by the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant has proved the deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint and passed the impugned order.

WE heard Mr. A.M. Venkatesh, the learned Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Anand Navalgimath, the learned Advocate for the respondent, in this appeal. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent/complainant in view of the fact that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not possess an effective licence on the date of the accident. The driver had licence to drive motor-cycle and a tractor only and did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive a tractor with trailer.

WE heard the learned Advocate for the respondent on this point. He submitted that though the driver had no driving licence to drive the tractor with trailer, he had the licence to drive the tractor at the time of the accident; but, subsequently, he got an endorsement from the Assistant Regional Transport Officer to the effect that the tractor-trailer unit comes under Non-Transport Series and authorisation to drive R.L.W. upto 7500 kgs. as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and hence at the time of the accident, the driver was eligible to drive the tractor with trailer and, according to him, the view taken by the District Forum was legal and correct. Mr. Venkatesh, learned Advocate, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in III (1999) CPJ 5 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT 317=1999 CTJ 65 (SC) (CP), Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein the Supreme Court has observed : "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. The respondent also does not say that any permit was granted to this appellant for plying the vehicle as a transport vehicle under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Moreover, on the date of accident, the vehicle was not carrying any goods, and though it could be said to have been designed to be used as a transport vehicle or goods carrier, it cannot be so held on account of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 66 of the Act. The vehicle in the present case weighed 5,920 kgms. and the driver had the driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. It is itself the case of the insurer that in the case of a light motor vehicle which is a non-transport vehicle, there was no statutory requirement to have specific authorisation on the licence of the driver under Form 6 under the Rules. It has, therefore, to be held that Jadhav, the driver was holding effective valid licence on the date of accident to drive light motor vehicle". The above decision will not help the contention of Mr. Venkatesh. On the contrary, it will help the present respondent. Here in the present case also, the driver had the licence to drive the tractor at the time of the accident. Admittedly, the trailer was not carrying any goods. Owner, who was the driver himself was using it for agricultural purpose. There is no evidence to show that the vehicle in the present case weighed more than 12,000 kgs. so as to come within the definition of "heavy goods vehicle" as defined under Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. "Light motor vehicle" is defined in Section 2(21) which means a transport vehicle or omni bus 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 kgs.

IN the present case, the opposite party got it elicited in the cross-examination of the complainant that after the accident he has obtained an endorsement on 17.10.1994 from the R.T.O. that he can drive the tractor with trailer. Complainant also stated in his re-examination that after one year from the date of obtaining the licence to drive the tractor automatically it will be converted into tractor and trailer which fact has not been disputed by the opposite party. On behalf of the INsurance Company, one Mr. C. Sridhar, the Branch Manager of Mandya Branch was examined as R.W. 1. He, in his evidence, has admitted that the gross vehicle weight of tractor and trailer has been shown as 1805 kgs. which means that it will be a light motor vehicle. Since the complainant/driver had licence to drive the light motor vehicle, we have to hold that he had the driving licence to drive the tractor and trailer whose weight was 1805 kgs.

MR. Venkatesh then placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 1992 Kar. 1335, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanumanthappa, wherein it was observed : "tractor is a motor vehicle, tractor-trailer will become a transport vehicle, i.e., goods vehicle when trailer is pulled by tractor". In the said case, the expression ''goods vehicle'' has been used by the High Court for the purpose to fix the liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation in respect of death or bodily injury to employees travelling in the trailer. It was not for any other purpose. In this connection, we can usefully refer to a decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court reported in I (1996) ACC 21 (DB)=1995 ACJ 703, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indirani & Ors. This is what the Madras High Court has observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment : "7. We have no doubt that the burden is on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver of the vehicle is disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence. Admittedly on the facts of the case, it is seen that the driver had renewed the driving licence on 26.10.1992. That itself shows that he was not disqualified. If in respect of the licence, the Insurance Company contends that the driver was disqualified from obtaining licence, it should have let in sufficient evidence in that regard. That burden has not been discharged by the Insurance Company in this case. 8. In the circumstances of the case, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and the exclusion clause cannot save it, is correct. The appeal is dismissed. No costs."

The District Forum, in its order, has observed as follows : "There is nothing in evidence produced by Insurance Company to show that the unladen weight of tractor with trailer is more than 4,000 kgs. on the contrary R.W. 1 denies the knowledge about the same when his specific attention was drawn to it. Under similar circumstances in both the cases relied on by the complainant, the Insurance Company was held liable. In the case on hand there is no evidence of Insurance Company to show that the tractor and the trailer, ill-fated was used to carry goods or passengers. Under the M.V. Act special DL''s are required to be had for driving different kinds of vehicles in public places. There is no specific provision to have specific for tractor and trailer separately in the M.V. Act. No such provision is brought to my notice."

BEFORE the District Forum, the Insurance Company placed reliance on the guidelines issued in its office which was produced at Ex. R7 which says that licence is issued specifically to drive either ''tractor'' or ''tractor and trailer'' and if the driver has driving licence to drive tractor only, he cannot drive it with trailer and if he does, Insurance Company is not liable. In the driving licence the complainant had obtained an endorsement to the effect "authorised to drive tractor with trailer". This is incorporated, of course, after the accident. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, the Insurance Co. cannot take advantage of the guidelines maintained in the office. The learned Advocate Mr. Venkatesh has placed reliance on few decisions of Single Judges to contend that holding a licence to drive tractor will not enable him to drive ''tractor and trailer''. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, we need not refer to these decisions.

AFTER re-assessing the entire materials placed by both sides in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates, and on the basis of the judgment of the District Forum, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the District Forum cannot be said to be contrary to law. We see no illegality committed by the District Forum. Hence, this appeal, which has no merit, shall stand dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.