IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
K. Kannan, J.
Hanuman Singh - Appellant
Vs.
Sona Devi & Others - Respondents
First Appeal from Order No. 6374 of 2011 (O & M)
Decided On : 02-09-2015
Insurance - Liability of Owner - Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Section 2(21), Section 2(44), Section 2(47), Section 2(46), Section 66, Section 3 - The judgment discusses the definition of 'light motor vehicle' and 'transport vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, and the overlap between the two definitions. It emphasizes the requirement of a transport vehicle endorsement for driving a goods carrying vehicle, regardless of whether goods are being carried at the time. The judgment also highlights the necessity of a driving licence with the transport endorsement for driving a transport vehicle, and the implications of insurance coverage on the licence requirement.
Fact of the Case:
The owner of a pick van contested liability for recovery by the insurance company, arguing that the vehicle qualified as a light motor vehicle and the possession of a light motor vehicle licence was sufficient for full indemnity. The court analyzed the vehicle's insurance policy, the definition of 'light motor vehicle' and 'transport vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the requirement of a transport vehicle endorsement for driving a goods carrying vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the possession of a light motor vehicle licence was not sufficient for driving a goods carrying vehicle, and emphasized the necessity of a transport vehicle endorsement for such vehicles. It declined to interfere in favor of the appellant and dismissed the appeal, directing the deposited amount to be paid to the insurer.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the definitions of 'light motor vehicle' and 'transport vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the requirement of a transport vehicle endorsement for driving a goods carrying vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment established that the possession of a light motor vehicle licence was not sufficient for driving a goods carrying vehicle, and emphasized the necessity of a transport vehicle endorsement for such vehicles, regardless of whether goods were being carried at the time.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the deposited amount was directed to be paid to the insurer as part satisfaction of the entitlement for recovery.
K. Kannan, J.
The owner of a pick van called as Jeep was fastened with a liability for recovery by the insurance company by the order of the tribunal. The owner of the vehicle is aggrieved and hence in appeal. According to the learned counsel, the weight of the Mahendra pick up van is less than 7500 kgs and it qualifies as light motor vehicle. He held a light motor vehicle licence and at the time when the accident took place. There were no goods being carried and hence the possession of light motor vehicle licence itself, according to him, was sufficient to secure to the owner full indemnity. The counsel's argument is that it is the manner of use at the relevant time which will govern the liability and the issue of entitlement to indemnity or not. The counsel would place reliance on a judgment of this court in Balbir Singh and Another Vs. Ralla Singh and Others, (2014) ACJ 1037 as squarely governing the issue. That was a case of tractor and trolley where the driver was holding licence to driver light motor vehicle. There were no goods loaded at the relevant time of the accident and since the gross weight of the tractor was less than 7500 kgs, it found that light motor vehicle licence was sufficient to secure full indemnity from the insurance company. I will make no comments on the above judgment except to state that the issue is squarely governed through judgments of the Supreme Court hereinafter discussed of what could qualify as a transport vehicle and when a driver could be stated to be duly licenced.
2. The definition contained in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short 'the Act') for the 'light motor vehicle' under Section 2(21) and 'transport vehicle' under Section 2(47) are not mutually exclusive. A light motor vehicle could just as well be a transport vehicle, if it is put to such use as the definition requires. Section 2(44) that defines "tractor" by itself is not a transport vehicle or a goods carrying vehicle. If its weight is less than 7500 kgs it still qualifies as the light motor vehicle. Consequently, Section 2(44) defining "a tractor" and Section 2(21) that defines a light motor vehicle still overlaps. But if the tractor is attached to a trailer, which is defined in Section 2(46), it shall be treated as a single unit. A light motor vehicle attached to a trailer may or may not carry goods. If it is tractor attached to trailer and insured as a transport vehicle or a goods carrying vehicle, the manner of insurance will govern the issue, irrespective of whether goods were transported at that time or not.
3. The judgment in Balbir Singh, referred to above, does not actually confront an issue of how the insurance had been taken for the vehicle, which was involved in the accident. It cannot, therefore, be taken as a precedent for our case where there are definite details available about the manner of how the vehicle was treated and how the insurance had been taken.
4. I had on the previous hearing directed the insurance company also to furnish the details of the insurance and how the owner had applied for coverage of risk for the said vehicle. I have seen through the copy of the insurance policy which describes the vehicle type to be "goods carrying - Public carrier". The insurance product is qualified as "commercial vehicle - package policy". This means that the owner has taken a package policy that covers for own damage risk as well as third party and also cover the risk for personal accident of owner and driver as well. A premium paid at Rs. 8464/- allows for use of the vehicle as set out in the policy for carriage of goods falling under Section 66 of the Act. The limitation as to use includes a policy coverage for use under a permit or any of the circumstances mentioned in Section 66(3) that sets out circumstances when permit is not necessary. The model of the vehicle as described in the policy is also a "pick up".
5. If a vehicle which is weighing less than 75600 kgs and hence would be a 'light motor vehicle'
Balbir Singh and Another Vs. Ralla Singh and Others
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Others
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others
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.