2015 Supreme(Raj) 1879
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.K.Ranka, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Santosh Devi (Smt.) & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1453 of 2006; and S.B. Civil Cross Objection No. 143 of 2009.
Decided On : 16-10-2015
For the Appellant:Mr. V.P. Mathur, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ravi Jangid on behalf of Mr. Anoop Dhand, Advocates.
A valid Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license is sufficient to drive a Light Commercial Vehicle (LCV), and a separate LCV license is not required.
Headnote:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM - SECTION 166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 2(21) AND (23) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - RULE 20 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT - INCOME - DEDUCTION - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION - FUNERAL EXPENSES - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - VALIDITY OF DRIVING LICENSE - LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE - LIGHT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE - DISTINCTION - NO SEPARATE LICENSE REQUIRED FOR LCV IF LMV LICENSE IS VALID - INSURANCE COMPANY CANNOT DISOWN LIABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Hari Ram, a 35-year-old man, died in a collision between his Luna and an Auto Taxi driven by Bhagirath Mal. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,83,840/- to the claimants, which was challenged by the Insurance Company and cross-objected by the claimants for enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Tribunal's finding that Bhagirath Mal was negligent was just and proper. The Court also held that the distinction between Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and Light Commercial Vehicle (LCV) licenses is no longer relevant, and a valid LMV license is sufficient to drive an LCV.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in finding Bhagirath Mal solely negligent? 2. Whether a separate LCV license is required if an LMV license is valid? 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Tribunal's finding of negligence was based on evidence and was not perverse. 2. The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. to hold that a separate LCV license is not required if an LMV license is valid. 3. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering the deceased's income, number of dependents, and other factors.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and partly allowed the cross-objection filed by the claimants. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,11,000/- with interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition was awarded to the claimants.
JUDGMENT
1. - Instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection haw been filed by the non-claimant-appellant and claimants-respondents respectively assailing the award dated 15.2.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar in M.A.C. Claim Case No. 485/2005.
2. Brief facts noticed are that Hari Ram was coming on Luna to his residence on 15.9.2004 at about 10.00 P.M. in the night and at that time a Auto Taxi, bearing No. RJ-23-P-2871, which was being driven in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and hit the Luna, consequent thereto, Hari Ram fell down and died on the spot. It is stated that he was aged about 35 years. The Tribunal, after analysing the material on record, allowed claim to the extent of Rs. 3,83,840/- which is assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company and cross objection has been filed on behalf of the claimants-respondents that the claim allowed is on the lower side and requires to be enhanced appropriately.
3. Counsel for the appellant at the outset contended that there was head or, collision and therefore, both were negligent whereas the Tribunal, on assumption and presumption, has held that only Bhagirath Mai, who was driving Auto Taxi was negligent. He contended that on perusal of the site plan also, the fact emerges that the deceased was also driving the vehicle on the main road and almost on the opposite direction. Therefore, once the site plan also proves that three was negligence of the deceased, the finding by the Tribunal is unjust ad perverse. He further contended that even the eye-witness Matadeen has said about this factum. He further contended that the driver Bhagirath Mal was driving Auto Taxi when he was not entitled to drive the same in as much as be had no valid driving license of Light Commercial Vehicle (L.C.V.) rather he had a licence of Light Motor Vehicle (L.M.V.) and since the Auto Taxi was a commercial vehicle, he was not entitled to drive the same and contended that there is vast difference in Light Motor Vehicle and Light Commercial Vehicle in as much as in case of Light Motor Vehicle, the license issued is for about 20 years but in a cast of Light Motor Vehicle, the same is required to be renewed every three years. H: further contended that the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Ors., 2006(2) T.A.C. 1 (SC) as also in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 253, has come to the conclusion that if there is no slid license to drive the vehicle, which was being driven at the intended the, then such claim is not required to be considered. He further contended that the Tribunal has not considered these issues appropriately and submits that the issue involved in the instance case, deserves to be decided in favour of the appellant in tie light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to supra.
4. Per contra, Counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal has analysed the material available on record in right perspective and on perusal of the site plan, it can very well be perused that the Auto Taxi driver came from the wrong side and it is not a head on collision but the driver of the Auto Taxi came from the wrong side and hit the vehicle of the deceased and such evidence has already been considered by the Tribunal and therefore, the same needs no interference.
5. In so far as the claim about the Light Commercial Vehicle as well as Light Motor Vehicle is concerned, he contended that the Auto Taxi has a weight of less than 7500 Kg. and no separate category exists of Light Motor Vehicle as well as Light Commercial Vehicle and the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (Civil Appeal Nos. 9927-28 of 2014), has taken into consideration various judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and has come to the conclusion that the licenc
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
