Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.P. MITTAL, J.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SAVITRI DEVI & OTHER – Respondents
MAC.APP. 31 of 2009
Decided On: 6.3.2012
LMV - Driving Licence Validity for Transport Vehicle - Section 2(21) of the MV Act, Section 3, Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 - The court discussed the validity of a driving licence for LMV to drive a transport vehicle, citing relevant sections and rules. The court highlighted the interpretation of the law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nasaria and Ors., 2008 IV AD (SC) 358, and emphasized that a driver with a valid LMV licence is authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellants challenged the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which denied recovery rights to the Appellant based on the driver's LMV licence validity for driving a transport vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver with a LMV licence was not competent to drive a transport vehicle, based on the interpretation of relevant sections and rules, and allowed the Appellant to recover the compensation from the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle.
Issues: Validity of LMV licence for driving a transport vehicle, liability of the insurance company, and entitlement to recovery rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 2(21) of the MV Act, Section 3, and Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989, and emphasized the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nasaria and Ors., 2008 IV AD (SC) 358.
Final Decision: The Appeal was allowed, and the Appellant was entitled to recover the compensation paid from the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle.
G.P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellants impugn the judgment dated 03.10.2008 whereby while awarding a compensation of ` 6,88,000/-, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) denied recovery rights to the Appellant on the ground that the holder of LMV (NT) driving licence is competent to drive a transport vehicle which in this case was a Mahindra Jeep (Phat Paht Sewa meant for carrying passengers for hire) bearing registration No.DL-1Q-0277.
2. Admittedly, the accident took place on 16.10.2004. Driver of the offending vehicle Shyam Singh (the fifth Respondent) possessed a driving licence No.P05042004257258 valid for the period from 26.04.2004 to 25.04.2024.
3. Since no Appeal has been filed by the Claimants, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, I am not to go into the question of quantum or the negligence. While dealing with the question of liability, the Claims Tribunal held as under:-
“LIABILITY (IN BOTH THE CASES):
Ld. Counsel for the Ins. Co. had argued that the driving licence possessed by the driver did not permit him to drive the passenger vehicle. Ins. Co. thus insist for recovery rights. R3W1 stated that he got verified the licence number 4267258 for motorcycle and LMV (NT). He further deposed that the driver was driving commercial vehicle. Therefore, he submits that Ins. Co. is not liable to indemnify.
R3W2 official from the transport department deposed that the licence issued on 26.04.2004, for LMV (NT) was to expire by 25.04.2024. Ex.R3W2 is the verification report. He also deposed that this licence is not valid for driving commercial vehicle. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for R-1 relied on the following rulings a) Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. SC 2000 (1) RCR (Civil) 437 b) Jeet @ Ajeet Singh v. Poonam & Ors. 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 640 P&H Court c) Nirmala & Ors. v. Satish DB 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) P&H Court 827 d) National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Shankar Lal 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 550 MP.
Ld. Counsel for Ins. Co. relied on the ruling of New India v. Suraj Parkash, 2001 ACJ 85 HP.
I have gone through the above rulings. The controversy is now resolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nasaria and Ors., 2008 IV AD (SC) 358.
The date of accident is 16.10.2004. While rendering the above recent ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted that Section 2 (21) of the MV Act, which defines light motor vehicle. It also discussed Section 3 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989. The application form for licence at rule 2 (c) show the licence for MLV, MGV, HGV, motor vehicles of other descriptions. Para 16 is very clear as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Para 16. “From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evidence 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 authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well.” In view of the above law, the licence to drive LMV covers both light passenger vehicles and light goods vehicle also. Therefore, the ruling in New India Ass. Co. Ltd. v. Suraj Parkash of HP High Court, is of no help to the Ins. Co. Hence, no recovery rights can be granted in both the cases to the Ins. Co. the Ins. Co. having admitted the policy shall make good the payment.”
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Claims Tribunal erred in holding that a person possessed of a licence for LMV was competent to drive a transport vehicle. Reliance on the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors., 2008 IV AD (SC) 358 was also misplaced.
5. I tend to agree with the contention raised on behalf of the Appellant. My Lord Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha while writing judgment drew a
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
