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

2024 Supreme(Guj) 1965

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
SARDULBHAI BAUBHAI SELNA – Appellant
Versus
YOGENDRAGIRI HIMMATGIRI GOSWAMI – Respondent
First Appeal No. 1475 of 2015
Decided On : 25-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : HIREN M. MODI
For the Respondents: NINAD SHAH, ADITI S. RAOL

IMPORTANT POINT
A light motor vehicle license suffices for driving transport vehicles under 7500 kg without requiring additional endorsement, clarifying insurance liability.

Headnote:

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 2(21), 2(47), 3, 10(2)(d), and 10(2)(e) - First Appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award - The driver of the auto rickshaw was exonerated by the Tribunal, citing lack of endorsement for transport vehicle - Supreme Court clarified that a light motor vehicle license suffices for transport vehicles below 7500 kg - Appeal partly allowed, insurance company liable for compensation. (Paras 6, 9, 10)

(B) Insurance Liability - The insurance company cannot evade liability based on the driver's lack of endorsement for a transport vehicle when the vehicle falls under the light motor vehicle category. (Paras 9, 10)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key facts are as follows:

The appeal concerns a motor vehicle accident involving an auto rickshaw, which resulted in injuries and the death of a passenger. The accident occurred in the early morning hours, when the auto rickshaw was driven rashly and negligently, leading to the vehicle turning turtle after avoiding an animal on the road. The claimants in the case are the relatives of the deceased.

A central issue in the case was whether the insurance company could be held liable for compensation, given the license of the driver. The driver possessed a license for a light motor vehicle, which is generally understood to include vehicles with a gross weight below 7500 kg. The original tribunal had exonerated the insurance company on the grounds that the driver did not have the appropriate endorsement for a transport vehicle. However, the appellate court clarified that a license for a light motor vehicle suffices for driving transport vehicles under 7500 kg, and that additional endorsement is not necessary for such vehicles.

The court's decision was supported by legal interpretation that a license to drive a light motor vehicle includes the ability to operate transport vehicles of similar weight, and that the absence of a specific endorsement for transport vehicles does not exempt the insurance company from liability when the vehicle falls within the light motor vehicle category. The vehicle involved was registered as a passenger transport vehicle, but its weight was below the threshold requiring separate endorsements.

Ultimately, the appellate court held the insurance company liable for the compensation amount, which was ordered to be paid jointly and severally by the driver and the insurance company. The court directed the insurance company to deposit the awarded amount within six weeks and instructed the tribunal on the disbursement process.


JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellants-original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 15.5.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 808 of 2008.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.2008 at about 4.00 a.m. the deceased and her mother were coming from Kotada to Mahuva in Auto Rickshaw No. GJ-4X-913, when the said rickshaw reached at the place of accident, driver of auto rickshaw opponent No. 1 was driving his rickshaw with full speed, rash and negligent manner and endangering the human lives and one roz animal came on road and rickshaw driver took a turn and therefore, turned turtle the rickshaw on the road. As a result of this accident, deceased Raniben sustained serious injuries and died during the treatment. Thus, it is the case of the claimants that the Auto Rickshaw No. GJ-4X-913 is involved in this accident. The offence is registered at Mahuva Police Station vide I C.R. No. 235/2008.

3. Heard learned advocates for both the parties.

4. Learned advocate for the appellants would submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was riding the light motor vehicle, being transport vehicle without having endorsement to ride vehicle and as such there is breach of terms and condition of policy. He would submit that this issue has been put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court first in case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2017 (14) SCC 663 and later on in case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and Others, 2024 INSC 840. Upon above submissions, he submit to allow this appeal.

5. I have also heard learned advocate Mr. Ninad Shah appearing for learned advocate Ms. Raol for the insurance company.

6. Having heard learned advocates for both sides, what could be considered in the matter that the driver of offending vehicle was riding auto rickshaw bearing No. GJ-4X-913 having unladen weight less than 7500 kilogram by possessing the licence to ply the light motor vehicle. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), see no difference in light motor vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kilogram and transport vehicle in the same nature, wherein in Para 45 and 46, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:

    “45. Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act and the Amendment Act 54/1994.

    46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to ho

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top