Back
Karnataka High Court
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE - Appellant
Versus
LAKSHMAMMA - Respondent
Decided On : 02-14-96
Insurance Company - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 2(21), Section 2(47), Section 3, Section 10 - The court examined whether the driver had a valid license to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, and concluded that the driver was authorized to drive a transport vehicle, i.e., the goods carriage, on the date of the accident. The court also considered the unladen weight of the vehicle and found that it qualified as a Light Motor Transport Vehicle. The liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000 as per the policy, and the court modified the award accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed in a Motor Vehicle Accident case. The claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased seeking compensation for the accident. The Insurance Company contended that the driver of the lorry involved in the accident was not authorized to drive heavy motor vehicles, and therefore, the company was not liable to indemnify the insured.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver was authorized to drive a transport vehicle, i.e., the goods carriage, on the date of the accident. It also concluded that the unladen weight of the vehicle involved in the accident qualified it as a Light Motor Transport Vehicle. The court modified the award to limit the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs. 1,50,000 as per the policy.
Issues: The main issue was whether the driver had a valid license to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, and the extent of liability of the Insurance Company as per the policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically Section 2(21), Section 2(47), Section 3, and Section 10, to determine the validity of the driver's license and the classification of the vehicle involved in the accident.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was partly allowed with a modification that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The remaining amount was to be paid by the owner at the same interest rate. Each party was to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 21-9-1994 passed in Motor vehicle Case No. 2186 of 1989 on the file of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Bangalore.
( 2 ) THE legal representatives of one Sri S. Y. Lakshminarayana Reddy, filed a claim petition before the Accidents Claims tribunal in respect of the death of above said Sri S. Y. Lakshminarayana Reddy in the accident occurred on 9-8-1989. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,61,000/- with current interest at 6% p. a. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company filed this appeal, contending that the driver of the lorry who drew the vehicle on the date of the accident had a licence only to drive light motor vehicle and he had no licence to drive heavy motor vehicle i. e. , lorry (heavy goods vehicle ). The contension of the appellant that as the driver was not authorised to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, the appellant-Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. In support of this contention, the Counsel for the appellant had brought to my notice Exhibit D-1 which is a History Sheet of Driving Licence of the driver of the lorry. The perusal of Exhibit D-1 shows that the driver was authorised to drive light motor vehicle only for the period from 5-8-1978 to 4-8-1981. The driving licence again reissued from 14-9-1981 to 13-9-1984. Thereafter under the heading M 2/169/82 it is endorsed to authorise to drive transport vehicle and also issued paper page No. 178 of 1982 with effect from 12-2-1982. Again it is reissued from 5-2-1986 to 4-2-1989. The date of accident is on 9-8-1989. Now it is to be examined whether as on 9-8-1989 which is the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle had a licence to drive heavy goods vehicle in order to ascertain whether there is any liability on the Insurance company to indemnify the insured.
( 3 ) SRI Sowri Raju, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Exhibit D-1 shows that the driver had the licence to drive only Light Motor Vehicle and not Heavy Motor Vehicle on the ground even though the driver was authorised to drive transport vehicle, it cannot be treated that he was authorised to drive heavy goods transport vehicle. In support of this contention, he relied upon Section 2 (21), Section 2 (47), Section 3 and Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:"10. Form and contents of licences to drive. (1) every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the central Government. (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) medium goods vehicle; (0 medium passenger motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of specified description". Section 3 reads as follows:"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 hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75) unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central government".
( 4 ) SECTION 2 (47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, defines "transport vehicle" as a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational i
AI
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
