IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Smt. Shamim Bano W/o Late Firoz Khan & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Vinod Kumawat S/o Mohan Lal Kumawat & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 137 of 2017
Decided On : 06-11-2017
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - DRIVER'S LICENCE - LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE - TRANSPORT VEHICLE - SECTION 10(2)(D) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 2(21) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 2(15) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 2(48) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - MUKUND DEWANGAN V. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED: C.A 5826/2011 - BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. RAMBHA DEVI: SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 27787/2017 - Whether a holder of a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. without a separate endorsement on the licence?
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, victims of an accident involving an insured vehicle, challenged the exoneration of the Insurance Company by the Tribunal on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a light transport vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the ratio laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) squarely covered the issue raised in the appeal and that the Insurance Company was jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation along with the driver and owner of the vehicle.
Issues: Whether the Insurance Company was liable for payment of compensation despite the driver not possessing a valid driving licence to drive a light transport vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra) to hold that a holder of a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. without a separate endorsement on the licence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, reversed the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of the Insurance Company's liability, and held that the Insurance Company was jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation.
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
This appeal filed by the claimants is directed against judgment and award dated 04.10.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Bhilwara (‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,92,932/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application i.e. 01.06.2010, however, the Insurance Company has been exonerated.
2. At the outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited: C.A 5826/2011 decided on 03.07.2017, inasmuch as, the Insurance Company has been exonerated on account of the fact that as the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. a Loading Tempo is a light transport vehicle and the driver was in possession of driving licence authorized to drive light motor vehicle only, on account of the driver not being in possession of a valid driving licence, there was violation of policy condition and, as such, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that though the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the said judgment itself is being reconsidered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reference, in this regard, has been made to order dated 31.10.2017 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 27787/2017, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that even in the order dated 31.10.2017, no interim order has been granted, rather the Court has noticed the contention of the Insurance Company that it was not questioning the award of compensation to the claimants and, therefore, on account of passing of the order dated 31.10.2017, it cannot said that the ratio laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) would stand stayed. Further submissions have been made that the appellants, the victims of the accident by the insured vehicle are being deprived of the compensation, as even direction to pay & recover has also not been made by the Tribunal.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3 pertaining to the liability of the Insurance Company, came to the conclusion that the vehicle involved in the accident was a light transport vehicle and as the driver was in possession of driving licence authorized to drive light motor vehicle only, there was violation of policy condition and exonerated the Insurance Company from payment of compensation.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) while dealing with the said issue, laid down as under:—
“46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001 Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.