SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 772

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
KULWANT SINGH & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9927-28 OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.1499-1500 OF 2014) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9929-30 OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS…29128-29129 OF 2014 (CC NOS.4232-4233 OF 2014)
Decided on : 28.10.2014

MAIN POINT
A driver having valid licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ is authorised to drive ‘light goods vehicle’ as well. No additional endorsement is required.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 2(21) and (23) – ‘Light motor vehicle’ and ‘medium goods vehicle’ defined respectively – Light motor vehicle covers both “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle” – A driver having valid licence to drive light motor vehicle was authorised to drive light goods vehicle as well – Insurance Company not entitled to recovery rights. (Para 9, 10, 11)

       (2013) 7 SCC 62; (2008) 3 SCC 464 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The question arising in this case is whether the Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights on the ground of breach of conditions of insurance policy when the driver possesses valid driving licence for driving light vehicle but fails to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle.

       The claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the dependents of the deceased who died in a road accident.

       The Tribunal held that the death was on account of negligence of the driver of the offending Tempo and the claimants were entitled to compensation.

       The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the driver was having valid driving licence. The offending vehicle was ‘light goods vehicle’.

       The Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the High Court with the plea that it was entitled to recovery rights as the driving licence was for driving ‘light motor vehicle’. It could not be equated with ‘light goods vehicle’.

       The High Court granted the recovery rights.

       Finding of the Court:

       Light motor vehicle covers both “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”. Therefore a driver having valid licence to drive light motor vehicle is authorised to drive light goods vehicle as well.

       Result: Appeals allowed.

       

JUDGMENT :

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.

1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No………of 2014 [CC. Nos.4232-4233 of 2014].

2. Leave granted in all the matters.

3. These appeals have been preferred against common judgment and Order dated 5th August, 2011 in MAC Appeal Nos.70 and 68 of 2011 and dated 8th March, 2013 in Review Petition Nos.793 and 776 of 2011 respectively of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

4. The question raised for consideration is whether the Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights on the ground of breach of conditions of insurance policy when the driver possesses valid driving licence for driving light vehicle but fails to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle.

5. The claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the dependents of the deceased Rizwan S/o Kadir @ Abdul Kadir who died in a road accident on 8th October, 2005 at about 05.30 A.M. while driving Tempo No.HR-G-5234 which was hit by a Tempo (Tata-407) bearing No.DL-1L-D3186. The Tribunal held that the death was on account of negligence of the driver of the offending Tempo (Tata-407) bearing No.DL-1L-D3186 and the claimants were entitled to compensation. The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the driver was having valid driving licence. The offending vehicle was ‘light goods vehicle’. The Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the High Court with the plea that it was entitled to recovery rights as the driving licence (Exhibit R3W1) was for driving ‘light motor vehicle’. It could not be equated with ‘light goods vehicle’. The High Court observed :

“Driving licence of the driver was for driving a light motor vehicle. In no manner can it be said that a light motor vehicle can be equated with a light goods vehicle. In this scenario, it is clear that there was a breach of the policy condition and driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Recovery rights should have been granted by the Tribunal against the owner. The award is modified. Recovery rights are granted in favour of the Insurance Company.”

6. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, the appellants-the owners of the vehicle in question have come up before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court erred in holding that licence for driving light motor vehicle entitled the driver to drive ‘light goods vehicle’. Reliance has been placed on the Judgments of this Court in S. Iyyapan vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2013) 7 SCC 62 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria Alias Nesearagi and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 . Thus, there was no breach of policy entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights against the owner. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the view taken by the High Court.

8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the judgments relied upon.

9. We find the judgments relied upon cover the issue in favour of the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), this Court referred to the provisions of Section 2(21) and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are definitions of ‘light motor vehicle’ and ‘medium goods vehicle’ respectively and the rules prescribing the forms for the licence, i.e. Rule 14 and Form No.4. It was concluded :

“20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that “transport vehicle” has now been substituted for “medium goods vehicle” and “heavy goods vehicle”. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.”

10. In S. Iyyapan (supra), the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ could drive ‘light motor vehicle’ used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endors




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top