IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly the definitions of 'transport vehicle' and 'private service vehicle', and the principles of fair compensation for the injured.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. These cross appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company as also by the Claimant challenging the Award dated 14.02.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-01, (North), Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in Suit no.4603/2016, titled Jogender v. Mohan Singh & Ors..

2. As two appeals challenge the same Award, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

CHALLENGE TO THE IMPUGNED AWARD BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY:

3. As far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it challenges the Impugned Award on the following grounds:

a. That the learned Tribunal has erred in not granting a right in favour of the Insurance Company to recover the compensation paid to the claimant from the owner of the offending vehicle, that is, the crane bearing registration no.HR-55L-0590;

b. The learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the functional disability of the claimant as 100% to the whole body when he had suffered permanent disability of only 81% towards right lower limb;

c. That date of the accident was 24.03.2015, however, the learned Tribunal has adopted the minimum wages notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi for an unskilled labour with effect from 01.04.2015, that is after the date of the accident.

Non-grant of recovery rights

4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the driving licence produced by the driver of the offending vehicle before the learned Tribunal was valid till 02.02.2015 as far as the transport vehicle is concerned, and for Light Motor Vehicle it was valid till 12.08.2030. He submits that as the Offending Vehicle is a crane and not a Light Motor Vehicle, even as per the weight given in the Registration Document of the Vehicle, the Driving License was not valid as on the date of the accident.

5. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. The driving licence produced by the driver of the offending vehicle stated its validity for `Transport Vehicle' till 02.02.2015, and for `Non-Transport Vehicle' till 12.08.2030. The learned Tribunal in its Impugned Award has held that as the offending vehicle was a crane, it would fall in the category of `non-transport vehicle' and, therefore, the driving licence was valid as on the date of the accident.

6. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') defines a `Transport Vehicle' in Section 2 (47) as under:

"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

xxxx

(47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;"

7. Admittedly, the crane was not a public service vehicle, goods carriage, or an educational institution bus. It was also not a `Private Service Vehicle' as well.

8. `Private Service Vehicle' is defined, in Section 2(33) of the Act as under:

"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

xxxx

(33) "private service vehicle" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes."

9. As the offending vehicle was not a `transport vehicle', it would necessarily fall under the category of `non-transport vehicle', and therefore, the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was valid as on the date of the accident.

10. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgment dated 06.02.2012 of the High Court of Madras in M/s ICICI Lombarad General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. U.Rengarajulu & Ors., Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1905/2020. The said judgment cannot come to the assistance of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company inasmuch as the only issue