The court clarified that a light motor vehicle license includes certain transport vehicles, and future prospects for compensation must align with established legal ratios.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment/award dated 30.07.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbatsar, District Nagaur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 27/2013 whereby the learned Tribunal proceeded on to pass an award for an amount of Rs. 10,49,300/- with interest @ 8% per annum in favour of the claimants. The learned Tribunal held all the respondents jointly and severably liable for the compensation.

The present appeal has been preferred aggrieved of the finding of Issue No. 3 as arrived by the learned Tribunal wherein it was held that the driver was having a valid licence at the time of accident.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly, the vehicle in question was a tractor (with trolly) which essentially is a transport vehicle and hence, the driver ought to have had license to drive such transport vehicle. Admittedly, the driving license (Exhibit-6) was not qua a transport vehicle and hence, the learned Tribunal ought to have concluded that the driver was not having a valid driving license. As a consequence, the Insurance Company could not have been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

The next ground raised is that future prospects have erroneously been computed @ 50% by the learned Tribunal whereas the same ought to have been computed @ 40% in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents claimants submitted that the issue whether a driver possessing a license for light motor vehicle being less than 7,500 kg. would be entitled to drive a light transport vehicle also, is no more res-integra and rests decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited; (2017) 14 SCC 663.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company is not in a position to refute the above submission that the issue stands covered by Mukund Deewangan's case (supra). In Mukund Dewangan's case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

“(i) “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 Section 2(15) and 2 (48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 Kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road-roller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) 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. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-03-2001 in the form.”

5. In view of the admitted position that the issue is covered by Mukund Dewangan's case (supra), the present appeal to the extent of the first ground raised does not deserve any interference.

However, the future prospects applied @ 50% is clearly in contradiction to the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the deceased being 37 years of age. The award impugned hence, deserves modification to that extent. The Insurance Company would be liable to pay the modified compensation to the claimants as follows: