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

2012 Supreme(Del) 342

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
G.P. MITTAL, J
Balwan Singh
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others
MAC.APP. 741 of 2011
Decided On: 06-02-2012

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Bhupesh Narula, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K.L. Nandwani, Advocate.

A driver must possess the appropriate licence for the class of vehicle involved in an accident. A person with a valid licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle is not authorized to drive a light goods vehicle.

Headnote:

LMV is defined as a transport vehicle or omnibus with a gross vehicle weight or unladen weight below 7,500 kg. A transport vehicle is defined as a public service vehicle, goods carriage, educational institution bus, or private service vehicle. A separate endorsement is needed for a person to drive an LMV when it is a transport vehicle. The period of validity of a licence to drive a transport vehicle is different from other licences. The court referred to Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Rule 16(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, and previous court decisions to support its analysis.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenges the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded compensation to the second respondent and granted the insurer the right to recover the compensation from the appellant. The tribunal held that the driver was not authorized to drive a tractor trolley. The appellant referred to a previous court decision and a notification issued by the central government to support his argument. The court analyzed the definition of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and the distinction between transport and non-transport vehicles. The court also referred to previous Supreme Court decisions on the issue. The court concluded that the driver was not entitled to drive the tractor trolley and upheld the tribunal's decision to grant recovery rights to the insurer. The appeal was dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the definition of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and the distinction between transport and non-transport vehicles. The court referred to previous court decisions and a notification issued by the central government. The court concluded that the driver was not entitled to drive the tractor trolley and upheld the tribunal's decision to grant recovery rights to the insurer.

Ratio Decidendi: The driver was not authorized to drive the tractor trolley, and the insurer had the right to recover the compensation paid from the owner of the vehicle.

Result: The appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

G.P. MITTAL, J

1. The Appellant Balwan Singh impugns the judgment dated 17.04.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,08,000/-in favour of the Second Respondent, the Claims Tribunal granted right to the First Respondent (the Insurer) to recover the compensation paid from the Appellant who was the owner of the offending vehicle number HR-14-A-5846.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal held that the driver i.e. the Third Respondent by virtue of driving licence Ex.PW-1/4 was authorized to drive a motor cycle and LMV (NT) and thus, he was not authorized to drive a tractor trolley (tractor + trolley).

3. The Learned counsel for the Appellant referred to a decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sushma & Ors. MAC APP. 503/2006 (decided on 01.09.2008) wherein this Court while analyzing the definition of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) as given in Clause 21 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) held that wherever unladen weight of a vehicle is less than 7,500/-kg., it would be covered within the definition of LMV irrespective of the fact that it was a transport vehicle or a non-transport vehicle. Though, it was not disputed before the Claims Tribunal that a tractor while pulling trolley would be a transport vehicle, I would like to refer to the Notification number 1248 (E), dated 05.11.2004 issued by the Central Govt. whereby the transport vehicles have been differentiated from the non-transport vehicles. The Notification is extracted hereunder:-

Sr. No. i ii iii Transport Vehicles Sr. No. Motor cycle with side car for carrying goods. i Motor cycle with trailer to carry goods ii Motor cycle used for hire to carry one passenger on pillion and motorised cycle – rickshaws for goods or passengers on hire. iii Non-Transport Vehicles Motor cycle with or without car for personal use. mopedsand Motorised Cycle (Engine Capacity exceeding 125 cc.) Invalid carriage.

iv Luxury cabs iv Three wheeled vehicles for

v Three wheeled vehicles for transport of passenger/goods V Motor car

vi Goods carrier trucks or tankers or mail carriers (N1 – N3 category) vi Fork lift

vii Power tiller and Tractors using public roads. vii Vehicles/trailors fitted with equipments like Rig,generator,compressor

viii Mobile Clinic or X-Ray Van or Library Van. viii Crane mounted vehicle

ix Mobile workshops. ix Agriculture Tractor and power tiller.

x Mobile canteens x Private Service Vehicle, Registered in the name of an individual and if declared to be used by him solely for personal.

xi Private Service Vehicle xi Camper Van or trailer for private use.

xii Public Service Vehicle such as Maxi cab, Motor cab, stage carriages and contract carriages including tourist vehicles. xii Tow trucks, Brakedown van and Recovery vehicles

xiii Educational Institution buses xiii Tower Wagons and tree trimming vehicles owned by Central, State and local authority.

xiv Ambulances xiv Construction Equipment Vehicles as defined in rule 2 (ca).

xv Animal ambulances

xvi Camper vans/trailers

xvii Cash Vans

xviii Fire tenders, snorked, ladders, auxillary trailers and fire fighting vehicles

xix Articulated Vehicles

xx Hearses

xxi Omnibus

4. In Natwar Pariksh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 364, a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that even though a trailer was drawn by motor vehicle, it by itself being a motor vehicle the tractor trolley would constitute a goods vehicle under Section 2(14) and would consequently be a transport vehicle under Section 2(47). Para 24 of the report is extracted hereunder:-

“24. Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words "motor vehicle". Although, a "trailer" is separately defined under section 2 (46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by motor vehicle, it is still included into the definition of the























































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top