Post-1994 amendments, a single transport vehicle license suffices; separate endorsements for heavy goods vehicles are not required.

1. The present is an owner's appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 25.3.2014 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, in Claim Case No. 12 of 2012.

3. Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal, in a death case, under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,54,000 to respondent No. 1 - claimant with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the claim application. While passing the award, the learned Tribunal has exonerated the respondent No. 3 insurance company of its liability and has fastened the liability for payment of compensation upon the present appellant, i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle.

4. The point of issue involved in the instant case is, whether the vehicle belonging to the appellant, i.e., a tanker truck, bearing registration No. CG 10 - ZB 0784, having a gross laden weight of 16,200 kg, falls within the definition of 'transport vehicle' under S.10 (2) (e) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that, whether a separate endorsement was required for a heavy goods vehicle to drive the said tanker.

5. Facts of the case in brief are that on 30.1.2012 the deceased Ajeet Kumar who was travelling on a motor cycle was hit by a vehicle belonging to the present appellant, as a result of which Ajeet Kumar succumbed to the injuries sustained. The legal representative of deceased Ajeet Kumar filed a claim application which stood allowed vide the impugned award.

6. The driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., respondent No. 2 Naveen Mandal, had a license which was authorized to drive a light motor vehicle (Non - transport) and also so far as the authorization for driving a 'transport vehicle' is concerned it had an endorsement of 'LMV - GV, Transport', and the issuing office was the RTO, Bilaspur. The endorsement so far as the validity for a transport vehicle was effective till 16.5.2014 from 2011 onwards and the date of accident in the instant case being 30.1.2012 means that it was during the validity of the said license. However, the Tribunal in the instant case has exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a separate endorsement authorizing him to drive a heavy goods vehicle.

7. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant - owner that it is a case where the driver in the instant case had a valid license for a transport vehicle and the validity of the license also was till 16.5.2014 and as such he had a valid license for a transport vehicle, and there was no requirement for separate endorsement for a heavy goods vehicle under the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that prior to 14.11.1994, different categories under which the license was to be issued were: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) medium goods vehicle; (f) medium passenger motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle; (i) road - roller; and (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. That, by virtue of the amendment made by the Act 54 of 1994, clauses (e) medium goods vehicle; (f) medium passenger motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; and (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle, were omitted and in place a separate category, namely (e) 'transport vehicle' was substituted. Thus, after 14.11.1994, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the license was not r