Point of Law: Motor Accident - Liability of Insurance Company - Validity of driving licence - Driving light goods vehicle on valid licence of light motor vehicle, whether same is breach of conditions of insurance policy, High Court granted recovery rights to respondent Insurance Company holding breach of policy conditions observing that a light motor vehicle cannot be equated with light goods vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1318/2014 dated 09.08.2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikere by the Insurance Company questioning the liability.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the claim petition was filed by the claimant stating that on 17.02.2014 while he was proceeding in his motorcycle near Rangapura Government School, the driver of Canter lorry bearing registration No.KA-13-6866 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, which resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant. The Insurance Company took the defence before the Tribunal that the vehicle involved in the accident is a transport vehicle and the driver had not possessed any valid and effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle as on the date of the accident. Insurance Company, in order to prove and substantiate its stand, examined the Senior Assistant as RW2 and RTO as RW3. RW3 gave evidence before the Tribunal and produced driving licence extract of the driver. The said driving licence extract was produced by him and marked as Ex.R5. RW3 specifically asserted in his examination-in-chief that the driver was not in possession of the requisite driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. He further stated that no application is filed within 30 days from the date of expiry of the transport driving licence earlier held by him and the lorry which caused the accident is a heavy goods vehicle. According to the said witness, the driver was not entitled to drive the said transport vehicle. The Tribunal relying upon the decision rendered in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V. ANNAPPA IRAPPA NESARIA AND OTHERS, reported in 2008 ACJ 721 SC proceeded to saddle the liability on the Insurance Company.

Being aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company is before this Court by filing the appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the transport vehicle could be driven by a person holding the LMV driving licence. The decision relied upon by the Tribunal in respect of facts emanating from the said case and the definition given to a light motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’) gives a clear indication that the vehicle could be a transport vehicle or a non-transport vehicle to fall within the category of LMV. The gross-weight of the vehicle has to be looked into while considering whether the vehicle is a light motor vehicle or not. Likewise, while determining whether the vehicle is a light motor vehicle or not, in respect of non-transport vehicle, the unladen weight of the vehicle has to be considered viz., motorcar, road-roller or tractor. The Tribunal was required to have noticed that necessarily the vehicle could be a transport vehicle or a non-transport vehicle depending upon the purpose for which it is registered as per Section 41(4) of the MV Act. The notification issued by the Central Government to classify the transport vehicle and non-transport vehicle could clarify the position. Likewise, the definition of non-transport vehicle as stated under Rule 2(h) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules would assist to arrive at a conclusion whether the vehicle is a transport vehicle or a non-transport vehicle. The Tribunal was required to have noticed the class, type and category of the vehicle and also should have looked into the decision rendered by the Apex Court subsequently to clarify the position that the driver while driving the transport vehicle is expected to hold persisting transport endorsement in his driving licence. The Tribunal has failed to take note of all these facts while determining the valid and effective driving licence of the driver and committed a