BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. THARANI, J.
The United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Tiruchirappalli - Appellant
Versus
Muthuselvi & Others - Respondents
C.M.A. (MD) No. 567 of 2019
Decided On : 17-03-2023
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 173 - 2017-14-SCC-663, F.A.O. 3997 of 2015 - The court discussed the requirement of a heavy transport vehicle license for driving a lorry and the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court found that the driver of the lorry did not have a valid driving license for a heavy transport vehicle, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation and allowed for recovery from the owner of the vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was riding a motorcycle when a tanker lorry hit him in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in his death. The claimants, dependents of the deceased, sought compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver of the lorry did not have a valid driving license for a heavy transport vehicle, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation and allowed for recovery from the owner of the vehicle.
Issues: Validity of the driver's license, liability of the Insurance Company, and the quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the driver of the lorry did not have a valid driving license for a heavy transport vehicle, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation and allowed for recovery from the owner of the vehicle.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, directing the Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation and allowed for recovery from the owner of the vehicle.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order, made in M.C.O.P.No. 903 of 2017, dated 25.09.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.903 of 2017, dated 25.09.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 to 5 herein are the claimants and the sixth respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.
2. A brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No. 903 of 2017, is as follows:-
On 13.02.2017, at about 12.30 am., when the deceased was riding a motor bearing Registration No.TN-67-AA-5403 keeping the extreme left side of the road, a Tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-45-BH-6953 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle. The deceased sustained injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital, Punalur and he was declared dead. The deceased was aged about 32 years, he was a Mason and was earning Rs.20,000/-per month. The petitioners are his dependants and they claim a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.
3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P.No. 903 of 2017, is as follows:-
The age, income and occupation of the deceased are all denied. The manner of accident as narrated in the petition is denied. The driver of the Tanker lorry was not having valid driving licence. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. The lorry had no valid insurance policy. The compensation claimed is excessive. The respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
4. Three (3) witnesses were examined and 12 documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. One (1) witness was examined and 2 documents were marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,59,400/- as compensation to be paid by the second respondent.
5. Against the award, the appellant - Insurance Company has filed this Appeal on the following grounds:-
The driver of the lorry was not having heavy transport vehicle (HTV) licence. Hence, the Insurance Company is not responsible to pay compensation. An official from the R.T.O office was examined as R.W.1. Extract of the driving licence was marked as Ex.R2. The driver was having only Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence. The Tribunal failed to order for “pay and recover” from the owner. There is no proper evidence for the monthly income. There is no possibility of getting regular or permanent work and the Tribunal failed to consider this aspect. The award is excessive.
6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the driver of the lorry was not having heavy motor vehicle licence. The driver was having only Light Motor Vehicle licence. R.W.1, an official from the R.T.O office was examined. Extract of the driving licence was marked as Ex.R2 and prayed an order for “pay and recover” from the owner of the vehicle.
7. On the side of the sixth respondent- owner of the vehicle, it is stated that R.W.1 has deposed that the driver of the lorry was having driving licence with an endorsement for transport vehicle. Since there is an endorsement to drive transport vehicle, the driver is entitled to drive medium and heavy motor vehicle. A judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, made in F.A.O. 3997 of 2015, dated 08.02.2018 (Subash Chand V. United India Insurance Co.Limited) is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:-
“..As per provisions of the Act, there is no such classification of vehicles or licences LMV transport or HTV transport. Rather, classification of vehicles as medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicl
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a valid driving license for a heavy transport vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the requirement of a specific endorsement for driving a transport vehicle, based on the case law of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance company Lt....
The court ruled that a driving license for a 'transport vehicle' includes authorization to drive a 'heavy goods vehicle', making the insurer liable for compensation.
A driver authorized to drive a transport vehicle is also authorized to drive a heavy goods vehicle as per recent amendments in the Motor Vehicles Act.
Endorsements on driving licences are necessary for operating transport vehicles, establishing liability standards under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Post-1994 amendments, a single transport vehicle license suffices; separate endorsements for heavy goods vehicles are not required.
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.