AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vide this order above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of.
Insurance company has filed the above appeals, challenging the award passed by the Tribunal dated 12.12.2007, whereby, appellant company was
directed to indemnify the insured.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a driving licence to drive a light motor-vehicle.
However, the vehicle-in-question was a light commercial vehicle. Hence, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid licence at the time
of the accident. Insured had committed breach of insurance policy.
Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the appeals and has submitted that since the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid driving licence to
drive a light motor-vehicle and the weight of the vehicle-in-question did not exceed seventy five hundred kilograms, the driver of the offending vehicle
was, thus, having a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663 in case of Mukund Dewangan Versus Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, decided on July 3, 2017, wherein it was held as under:-
“60. 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)Â A transport vehicle and omnibus, the grossvehicle 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)Â 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 byinsertion 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€
In the present case, admittedly, the vehicle-in-question comes in the category of the light commercial vehicle and the laden weight of the vehicle is
twenty eight hundred and twenty kilograms. Thus, the weight of the vehicle-in-question does not exceed seventy five hundred kilograms. In these
circumstances, the driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle authorizing him to drive a light motor-vehicle has been rightly considered
as a valid driving licence by the Tribunal.
There is also no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that insurance company was not liable to indemnify the insured
as the deceased were travelling as a passengers in the goods vehicle. A perusal of the insurance policy reveals that premium had also been paid by
the owner to carry four non-fare paying passengers in the vehicle-in-question. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any material on
record to show that the deceased had paid fare while travelling in the offending vehicle. Apparently, due to this reason, the said argument was not
raised before the Tribunal.
Dismissed.