The main legal point established in the judgment is that the driver of a tractor does not need a separate driving licence to drive a transport vehicle.

REKHA MITTAL, J.

CM No.14192-CII of 2016

Prayer in this application is for condoning delay of 15 days in re-filing the appeal.

In view of the averments made in the application supported by an affidavit of Kuldip Singh-clerk of counsel for the appellant, the application is allowed and delay of 15 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned.

Disposed of accordingly.

FAO No.4164 of 2016

The present appeal has been directed against award dated 24.02.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (in short 'the Tribunal') whereby compensation has been awarded in favour of Mrs. Sonali Devi and others with regard to death of Sh. Vivek Tiwari in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 02.01.2015.

2. The sole submission made by counsel for the appellant is that driver of the offending vehicle i.e. tractor bearing No.HR-51-AT-5028 did not possess a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. The insured is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance, therefore, the insurance company is entitled to have a right of recovery against the insured after satisfying claim of third party i.e. claimants. To bring home his contention, counsel has placed reliance upon notification No.S.O. 1248(E) dated 05.11.2004 issued by the Central Government wherein transport and non-transport vehicles have been described in exercise of jurisdiction envisaged under Section 41(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'). It is argued that as per clause (vii) of the notification, the power-tiller and tractor using public roads have been categorized as transport vehicles.

3. It is further argued that in the case at hand, the offending vehicle was registered in the year 2012 and the accident took place on 02.01.2015, therefore, driver of the offending vehicle was required to hold a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. In support of his contention, he has referred to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court M/s. Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others, 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 61.

4. I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the paper-book particularly the award passed by the Tribunal.

5. The tractor has been defined in Section 2(44) of the Act which says 'tractor' means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion) but excludes a road-roller. A perusal of the definition of 'tractor' shows that tractor itself cannot carry any load without the equipment.

6. Transport vehicle has been defined in Section 2 (47) of the Act and the same reads as follows :-

"(47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle."

7. The Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-Section (4) of Section 41 of the Act issued the notification dated 05.11.2004 whereby tractor using public road has been specified to be a transport vehicle for the purpose of registration. No amendment has been made by the legislature in the Act qua definition of tractor in Section 2(44) or transport vehicle in Sector 2(47). The mere fact that a tractor using public road is required to be registered as a transport vehicle is not sufficient to uphold that driver of the tractor is required to possess a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle.

8. In M/s. Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. case (supra), controversy before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was entirely different namely whether the taxation authority under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 was right in taxing the 'tractor-trailer' as a separate and distinct vehicle different from a tractor and denying exemption sought by the appellant under Section 16 of the said 1957 Act on the ground that the tractor-trailer was a distinct category of "goods carriage" requiring permit under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On the other hand, the Apex Court in Nagashetty v. United