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 Ltd. (2017 (2) TNMAC 145 (SC))

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and award passed in M.C.O.P.No. 22 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Padmanabhapuram dated 25.01.2010.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner, challenging the compensation awarded on certain counts by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), at Padmanabhapuram in M.C.O.P.No.22 of 2004 dated 25.01.2010.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed herein as per the rank in M.C.O.P.No.22 of 2004.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as follows:-

This is a case of injury and the petitioner is a motor mechanic aged 19 years. On 25.09.2002 at about 17.00 hours, the second respondent driver of the Bajaj light goods three wheeler vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01-C-8271 dashed against the petitioner, who was walking in the footpath in the extreme left side of the road. As the result of the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was admitted at Issac hospital, Marthandam immediately on the same day and took treatment as in patient till 27.09.2002. Thereafter, for better treatment, he was shifted to Morris Mathias hospital on 28.09.2002 wherein he was treated till 03.03.2003. He was treated for the fracture of right femur and left Trochantric and renal failure. Hence, seeking a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the said injury sustained by him, the petitioner had filed the claim petition.

4. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle, the second respondent is the driver of the vehicle and the third respondent is the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured. The third respondent had filed a counter before the learned Tribunal refuting all the allegations set forth in the claim petition.

5. The learned Tribunal has framed five issues. One witness P.W.1 was examined on the side of the petitioner and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. On the side of the respondents, three witnesses R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked. The learned Tribunal on considering the evidence deposed by the witnesses and various documentary evidences and appreciating the arguments putforth by all the parties, proceeded to conclude that the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent driver. The learned Tribunal further relied upon the evidence of R.W.2, the person working at RTO Office, Marthandam who had deposed that the second respondent was given with licence to drive light motor vehicle. The licence of light motor vehicle was also marked as Ex.R2. The learned Tribunal further relied upon the evidence of R.W.3, who was working as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector at Parasala RTO Office through whom the registration certificate for the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01-C-8271 was marked as Ex.R3. Further the contention of R.W.3 that the respondents 1 and 2 violated the permit conditions by driving the vehicle in Tamil Nadu, and that they had permission/permit to ply the vehicle only in the State of Kerala was also taken into account. The said permit has not been produced by the third respondent before the Court. Hence, the learned Tribunal observed that the third respondent failed to prove that the respondents 1 and 2 violated the terms of permit. However, the respondents had proved that the second respondent had driven a heavy motor vehicle without having valid licence at the time of accident. Ex.R1 is the insurance policy which categorically provides that the insurer is not liable for the acts of the driver without having valid driving licence. As such the learned Tribunal concluded that the third respondent insurance company is not liable t