Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant-owner aggrieved by the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 25.4.2001.

2. Shri Sanjay Mehrishi, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the insurance company has been wrongly absolved of its liability to indemnify the owner for payment of compensation to the claimant. It was argued that unladen weight of the vehicle, which was mini bus was 7500 kg and therefore in view of definition clause 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it would be a "light motor vehicle". The driver possessed the licence to drive a light motor vehicle and therefore it cannot be said that he was not authorised to drive a mini bus. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 620 and argued that Supreme Court in that case was dealing with a case where the vehicle was neither having a permit for a goods carriage nor carrying any goods on the date of accident, such a vehicle even though designed to be used as a goods carrier or transport vehicle was held to be remained a light motor vehicle and was not a light goods vehicle or a transport vehicle. Hence licence to drive a light motor vehicle issued in Form 6, was held to be effective and valid licence to drive such a vehicle. This was held because unladen weight of that vehicle was 5920 kg.

3. Shri Prashant Chahar, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that judgment of Supreme Court relied on by learned counsel for the appellant has been held to be not a good law in the subsequent judgment in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angad Kol-2009 RAR 204 (SC). It was argued that even otherwise unladen weight of the vehicle has not been proved in this case, besides the vehicle was used as a transport vehicle to carry the passengers. Counsel submits that the Tribunal for that reason exonerated the insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation.

4. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. Even though in the present case the unladen weight of the mini bus in question has not been proved but even if it is presumed that its unladen weight was less than 7500 kg, that by itself would not determine the fact that the driver in the present case was holding an "effective driving licence" within the definition of Section 3 of the Act. The definition of "light motor vehicle" has been given in Section 2(21) and "heavy goods vehicle" in Section 2(16) of the Act. While it may be true that for "light motor vehicle", section 2(21) has given the unladen weight upto 7500 kg and "heavy goods vehicle" in Section 2(16) of the Act has been defined to be having more than 12000 kg. Nevertheless, in the scheme of the Act, especially after the amendment of Act No.54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994 by which clause (e) was inserted in Section 10(2) which contains the word "transport vehicle". This indicated the intention of the legislature to group all the transport vehicles together irrespective of their unladen weight.

6. The Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr.-2009 RAR 139 (SC), was dealing with a case wherein the offending vehicle was an auto rickshaw. The registration certificate as also the policy of the insurance mentioned the vehicle to be a transport vehicle. The question was whether the driver who possessed the licence to drive a light motor vehicle had a legal, valid and effective driving licence. It was held that definition of "light motor vehicle" would not include a light transport vehicle. The finding of the High Court that three wheeled vehicle will fall in the category of light motor vehicle regardless of the fact whether it was meant for transporting goods or for transporting the passengers, was held to be perverse.

7. The Supreme Court in National Insurance

Click Here to Read the rest of this document