The main legal point established is that a driving license for a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) is valid for driving an Auto Rickshaw, which falls under the definition of LMV.

JUDGMENT :

(Michael Zothankhuma, J.) : -

1. Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

2. The issue raised is whether the definition of Light Motor Vehicle (in short, LMV) as provided under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 would include an Auto Rickshaw, which is a transport vehicle. The further question that has to be decided is as to whether the deceased, who is allegedly the owner of the Auto Rickshaw fulfills all the conditions required under the package policy provided by the Insurance Company, to enable the claimants to receive compensation under personal accident cover amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-.

3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17.05.2013 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur by which the MACT Case No. 32/2012 was dismissed.

4. The case of the appellants/claimants is that the husband of the appellant No. 3 died in a motor vehicular accident on 21.03.2012, when he lost control of the three wheeler Auto Rickshaw, which he was driving and hit a tree. The claim petition was filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

5. The case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal was that the deceased was the owner cum driver of the three wheeler Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No. AS07/C-2815(AR). The said vehicle was passenger carrying Auto Rickshaw which was covered by a Package Policy, wherein the personal accident cover payable to the owner cum driver was Rs. 2 Lakhs. The premium for the said personal accident cover was also paid and as such, compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs should have been awarded.

6. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, which was registered as MACT Case No. 32/2012, vide judgment dated 17.05.2013, on the ground that the deceased did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. The learned Tribunal thus held that while the deceased had a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, there was no endorsement made upon the said driving licence to show that the deceased was permitted to drive a transport vehicle.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the licence issued to the deceased for driving a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) is inclusive of a three wheeler Auto Rickshaw, which the deceased was driving at the time of the accident. He accordingly submits that the claimants are entitled to be given compensation as per the personal accident cover provided in the insurance policy. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663.

8. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the judgment passed by the 3 Judges Bench in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has been referred to a larger Bench.

9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

10. Section 2(21) of the M.V. Act, 1988 includes a transport vehicle, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7, 500 kg, within the definition of a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). As per the notification Vide S.O. 1248(E), dated 05.11.2004 issued by the Central Government, under Section 41(4) of the M.V. Act, 2008, a three wheeler vehicle used for transport of passengers/goods is a transport vehicle. The insurance policy of the Auto Rickshaw, under the head 'class of vehicle' states that the said vehicle is a A/R passenger. In the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the Apex Court held at Para 60.1 as follows:-

60.1. 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.

11. The Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has clearly he