Back
1999(9) Supreme 478
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)
S. Saghir Ahmad and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Ashok Gangadhar Maratha -Appellant
versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4490 of 1996
Decided on 2-9-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mrs. Rajni K. Prasad, Advocate for T.C. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Vishnu Mehra, Manish Sharma, K.M.K. Nair, Advocates.
(ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 3 r/w Sections 2(21) and 66-Driving licence-Licence to drive light motor vehicle-Whether licence to drive light motor vehicle means licence to drive light transport vehicle-Whether there is any distinction between light motor vehicle and light transport vehicle.
In the instant case the vehicle in question was a Swaraj Mazda truck weighing less than 6000 kg. The driver who drove the vehicle at the time of accident had a valid licence to drive light motor vehicle. The insurance company rejected the claim on account of damage to the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle was light transport vehicle and the driver had no licence to drive light motor vehicle and the insured violated terms of policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Held : Definition of "light motor vehicle" as given in clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to a "light goods vehicle" or a "light transport vehicle". A "light motor vehicle" otherwise has to be covered by the definition of "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" as given in clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor vehicle can be non-transport vehicle as well. (Para 9)
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 the appellant for plying the vehicle as a transport vehicle under Section 66 of the Act. Moreover, on the date of accident, the vehicle was not carrying any goods, and thought 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. (Para 10)
Contention of the insurer has been that the vehicle was a goods carriage and thus a transport vehicle. Rule 16 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 prescribes the form under which a driving licence is to be issued. It is form No. 6. Jadhav was having a driving licence in form 6 which was for driving a light motor vehicle. There was no endorsement on his driving licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. For a vehicle to be a transport vehicle, it must be a goods carriage which in turn means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods or when not so constructed or adapted used for the carriage of goods. We have the definitions of "heavy goods vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle". There is no definition of "light goods vehicle". Instead the definition is of "light motor vehicle". If we apply the definition of a "light motor vehicle" as given in clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act to mean a "transport vehicle" which in turn means a "goods carriage" then we have nowhere the definition of a "light motor vehicle" without it being a "goods carriage". Section 2 of the Act begins with the words "unless in this Act the context otherwise requires". We have, therefore, to give a meaningful interpretation to "light motor vehicle" as given in clause (21). Clause (e) of Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 defines "non-transport vehicle" to mean a motor vehicle which is not a transport vehicle (clause (e) renumbered as clause (h) by 1993 Amendment to Rules). This definition would, therefore, take out of the definition of "transport vehicle" as given in clause (21) light motor vehicles which are not goods carriage. (Para 5)
The vehicle in the present case weighed 5,920 kilograms and the driver had the driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. It is not that, therefore, the insurance policy covered a transport vehicle which meant a goods carriage. The whole case of the insurer has been built on a wrong premise. 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 was holding effective valid licence on the date of accident to drive light motor vehicle. (Para 13)
JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Appellant has been non-suited by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the National Commission ) on appeal by the insurer against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission ). Both the National Commission and the State Commission have been constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By judgment dated December 30, 1993 the State Commission had allowed the complaint of the appellant and had directed the respondent-insurer to pay to the complainant-appellant a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till payment for satisfying his claim under the policy issued by the respondent. The claim was made on account of damage caused to the motor vehicle belonging to the appellant and insured with the respondent.
2. Appellant was the owner of a Swaraj Mazda truck, a light motor vehicle bearing registration No. KA 28 567. The vehicle was insured with the respondent insurance company in the sum of Rs. 2,82,000/- as per policy bearing No. MV/3440/91 for a period from February 17, 1991 to February 16, 1992. There is no dispute that the vehicle in question is a light motor vehicle weighing less than 6,000 kg. The vehicle met with an accident on November 26, 1991 and was completely damaged. Appellant lodged his claim with the insurer under the insurance policy covering the vehicle. Since the insurer refused to honour its commitment under the insurance policy, the appellant filed complaint with the State Commission claiming Rs. 5,61,000/-. State Commission allowed the claim of the appellant to the extent of Rs. 2,70,000/- and granted him interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the date of accident, i.e., November 26, 1991. The appellant also awarded cost amounting to Rs. 2,500/-. State Commission negatived the plea of the insurer that the vehicle was not being driven by person having an effective driving licence.
3. Against the judgment of the State Commission, insurer filed appeal before the National Commission which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated May 4, 1995. National Commission accepted the stand of the insurer as spelled out in para 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the insurer before the State Commission. This para 14 we reproduce as under :
"This respondent states that the said assessment of the surveyor was subject to the condition that the insured had not violated the terms and conditions of the policy. This respondent states that on verification of the documents produced by the insured revealed that the vehicle in question was a light goods vehicle and hence a transport vehicle. The driving particulars of the driver, Naga Saheb Jadhav which were produced by the insured disclosed that he had held a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle only which was valid for the period 27.2.90 to 26.2.99. This driving licence, thus revealed that Naga Saheb Jadhav was not authorised to drive a transport vehicle. This respondent states that the insured had committed breach of the terms of the policy and violated the provisions of M.V. Act, 1988 in entrusting a transport vehicle to a person who had not held a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and as a consequence thereof, this respondent was not liable to indemnify their insured in respect of the own damage claim lodged vide his claim form dated 10.12.1991."
4. Under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act ), no person shall drive a Motor Vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle. Section 3 is as under :
"3. Necessity for driving licence.-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle .
in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle : and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
