The interpretation of 'light motor vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the applicability of the decision in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 14 SCC 663 were central to the judgment.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has arisen from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(“NCDRC”) dated 25 October 2018 reversing a decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(“SCDRC”). The NCDRC restored the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(“District Forum”) to reject the consumer complaint filed by the appellant.

3. The vehicle, a Mahindra Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ 17 TA 0010, met with an accident at 3 p.m. on 11 April 2008. As a result of the accident, the driver and eight persons died and three persons were injured.

4. The First Information Report in regard to the accident being FIR No 35/2008 was lodged at PS Rampur, District Jhalawar(Rajasthan).

5. The vehicle had been insured on 18 April 2007 with the respondent for a sum of Rs 2,70,084. The claim under the insurance policy was repudiated by the insurer. This led to the filing of a consumer complaint.

6. The District Forum by its order dated 5 February 2013 rejected the complaint on the ground that while the accident took place at 2.10 pm on 11 April 2008, the driving license of the deceased driver appears to have been renewed at 2.42 pm on 11 April 2008. Holding that the driver did not have a valid license for driving a transport vehicle, the District Forum rejected the claim. This decision was reversed by the SCDRC.

7. The NCDRC restored the decision of the District Forum.

8. During the course of the hearing, the attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that when a claim was lodged before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(“MACT”), a finding of fact was recorded to the effect that the driving license of the deceased driver for driving a four wheel vehicle upto the capacity of 7500 kgs was valid from 16 August 1994 to 18 May 2013.

9. The MACT by its Award dated 8 February 2017, in a batch of accident cases, came to the following conclusion:

“27.1 I have considered the aforesaid situation and also perused Exhibit A-5 and it is clear that the driving license of deceased Wasim Nawaz i.e. RJ 17/4097/16 Jhalawad for driving four wheller vehicle to the capacity of 7500 kg. and the same was valid from 16-8-94 to 18-5-13 which was for light motor vehicle and it has been argued that though vehicle bearing registration no. RJ 17 TA 0010 was a taxi vehicle but the same comes under the category of light motor vehicle and thus deceased Wasim Nawaj was having a right to drive the said vehicle under the hold of driving license….”

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer states, on instructions, that the third party claims which were awarded by the MACT have been duly satisfied.

11. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the definition of the expression “light motor vehicle” in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 covers a transport vehicle of which the gross weight does not exceed 7500 kilograms. It was submitted that the license of the deceased driver to drive a light motor vehicle was valid between 16 August 1994 and 18 May 2013 and would cover a transport vehicle whose gross weight was less than 7,500 kgs. Reliance has been placed on a decision of three Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 14 SCC 663.

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer submitted that the District Forum correctly rejected the claim, since even according to the appellant, the license for a transport vehicle of the deceased driver had been renewed at 2.42 p.m. on 11 April 2008, after the accident took place in which the driver had died on the spot. Hence, it was submitted that the renewal of the transport license in favour of a dead individual was not a valid renewal in the eyes of law and as a matter of fact, according to the insurer even the period of license had expired on 16 January 2008.

13. Learned counsel further submitted on the alternative plea that the decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has been reserved for reconsideration by