Interpretation of the categories of vehicles and the authorization to drive them under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

1. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award dated 27.06.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara, in M.A.C. Case No.263/2011 whereby the appellant-claimant was awarded an amount of Rs. 2,66,963/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident which occurred on 25.06.2007.

3. Learned Tribunal after framing of the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, decided the claim-petition of the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the amount is required to be recomputed in the light of Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority guidelines dated 05.11.2018. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted the recalculation of the award in the present case in accordance with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority guidelines which is reproduced as under:-

5. In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,10,750/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its Judgment dated 27.06.2011, within a period of eight weeks. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim-petition till the same is paid.

In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5147/2011

6. Appellant, owner/driver, has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') challenging the judgment and award dated 27.06.2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal, while quantifying and awarding compensation to the respondent-claimant, has exonerated the insurer from its liability.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-owner/driver has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in deciding Issue No.4 regarding violation of the conditions of insurance policy. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the issue involved in the matter has already been set at rest by the Larger Bench of Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2017) 14 SCC 663].

8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-insurer submits that the driver of insured vehicle was not having license to ply heavy goods vehicle but holding the license to ply LMV. He, therefore, submits that the instant appeal, being bereft of any merit, is liable to be rejected.

9. I have considered the submissions made at Bar, perused the impugned judgment & award and also scanned record of the case.

10. Upon examining the judgment in case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), there remains no quarrel that a transport vehicle, as per weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Section 2(15) & 2(48) includes an "omnibus", as the gross weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. The Court further held that holder of a driving licence to drive the class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) would be 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. The Court held:

"Prior to amendment in 1994 licence for transport vehicle was clearly covered as per Section 10(2)in five categories, i.e., Section 10(2) (d) light motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(e) medium goods vehicle, Section 10(2)(f) medium passenger motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(g) heavy goods vehicle and Section 10(2)(h) hea