Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3818
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.
Krishna Kumar And Another - Appellant
Versus
United Insurance Company Ltd. Railwayganj, Hardoi And Anr. - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. - 20 of 2016 with FAFO No.21/2016
Decided On : 05-10-2016
For the Appellant :- Suresh Chandra Gupta, Anurag Shukla
For the Respondent:- Nischal Jagdhari.
The endorsement of hazardous goods on the driving license is a mandatory condition under the Motor Vehicles Act, and insurance companies are entitled to defense under Section 149(2) for violations of the law.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Recovery Rights - Section 173 - Section 14(2), Section 11, Rule 9 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, Section 149(2)(ii) - The court discussed the validity of driving license for transport vehicles carrying hazardous goods, the requirement of endorsement on the license, and the implications for insurance companies under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals questioned the recovery rights granted to the insurance company to recover compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in favor of the claimants arising from an accident. The validity of the driver's license for transporting hazardous goods was a key issue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the endorsement of hazardous goods on the driving license is a mandatory condition under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also held that the insurance company is entitled to defense under Section 149(2) of the Act for violations of the law.
Issues: Validity of driving license for transport vehicles carrying hazardous goods, requirement of endorsement on the license, and the implications for insurance companies under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The endorsement of hazardous goods on the driving license is a mandatory condition under the Motor Vehicles Act, and insurance companies are entitled to defense under Section 149(2) for violations of the law.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the appellants were rejected.
Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.
Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Nischal Jagdhari, learned counsel for oppsoite party no. 1 Insurance Company.
2. Both the appeals involving a common question were heard and are being decided finally by a common judgement at the admission stage.
3. These FAFOs filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act essentially question the recovery rights granted in favour of the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants i.e. opposite party no. 2 (in FAFO No. 20 of 2016) and opposite parties no. 2 to 5 (in FAFO No. 21 of 2016) which arise out of the same accident that took place on 13.10.2011 and as a result whereof, claim petitions no. 350 of 2013 and 179 of 2013 respectively were filed before the Tribunal at Hardoi.
4. Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned awards has urged that the recovery rights granted in favour of the insurance company are bad in the eye of law on more than one count. Firstly it is argued that the Tribunal while recording a finding on the question of validity of driving licence has erred in holding that the driver who was plying the hazardous goods transport vehicle was not possessed with a valid driving licence. This submission proceeds on the premise that the driving licence which is issued under Section 15 of Motor Vehicles Act was renewed on 22.2.2011 and the same was valid up to 22.2.2014. The driving licence of which the renewal period was valid also contained an endorsement for the transport of hazardous goods during the period from 24.6.08 to 23.6.09 and thereafter from 7.9.2010 to 6.9.2011. The endorsement for carrying hazardous goods from 24.6.08 to 23.6.09 and from 7.9.2010 to 6.9.2011 are duly endorsed on the licence placed on record alongwith the application for interim relief /stay filed by the appellants.
5. It is further argued that the endorsement of hazardous goods on the driving licence once made is valid and the requirement of such an endorsement so as to validate the period of renewal is not envisaged under any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act for the reason that there is no provision under the Act prescribing for the issuance of an exclusive licence insofar as the transport vehicles carrying hazardous goods are concerned. Though several types of driving licences are provided under the Motor Vehicles Act but a vehicle of the description of ''hazardous goods vehicle' is undefined and there is no provision for issuance of a specific type of licence for carrying hazardous goods except for an endorsement to be made on a valid licence which once made would indemnify the owner's liability.
6. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is strongly refuted by the learned counsel for the insurance company by making a reference to Section 14 (2) and in particular the proviso appended thereto which reads as under:
"14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.
1. ...............
2. A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,--
a. in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years;
Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus;"
7. Learned counsel for the insurance company has further drawn attention of the Court to Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act which for ready reference is extracted below:
"11. Additions to driving licence.
1. Any person holding a driving licence to drive any class or description of motor vehicles, who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence to drive any other class or description of motor vehicles, may apply to the licens
