Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 24864
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI, J
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MAMAD IBRAHIM KUNBHAR – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1233 of 2012
A driver holding an LMV license can operate a transport vehicle without additional endorsement if the vehicle's weight is below 7500 kg, ensuring compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 2(21), 3, and 173 - Compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was challenged on grounds of legal interpretation regarding driver's license requirements and applicability of precedents - The tribunal awarded Rs.4,44,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. - The appeal asserted that the tribunal did not consider relevant case law and misapplied licensing requirements. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Licensing Requirements - The court affirmed that a driver with an LMV license can operate a transport vehicle without an additional endorsement if the vehicle's weight is under 7500 kg, aligning with interpretations of the Motor Vehicles Act. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of compensation for a road accident, questioning the tribunal's interpretation of the driver's licensing requirements.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was rejected as the issues were covered by established case law and the tribunal's decision was upheld.
Issues: Whether the tribunal erred in its interpretation of licensing requirements for drivers of transport vehicles and if relevant case law was considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that an LMV license suffices for operating certain transport vehicles, and additional endorsements are unnecessary for vehicles under 7500 kg, affirming the legislative intent of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Result: Appeal rejected.
ORAL ORDER
This First Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the final judgment, order and award dated 25.1.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh at Bhuj in MACP No.268/2008. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,44,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation to the respondents 1 to 4 (original applicants) under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
3. Learned Advocate for the appellant has preferred this appeal on two grounds. Firstly, the tribunal has not considered the decision in case of National Insurance Company Limited V. Sinitha, [2012 2 SCC 356]. Secondly, the tribunal ought to have considered the fact that driver of the offending vehicle did not have endorsement of riding the transport vehicle to ply LMV.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the claimant has submitted that no error is found in the judgment and award and therefore appeal may be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and considering the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the appellant, it appears that both the issues are covered by the decision in case of Sinitha (supra) which has been overruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Sunil Kumar [2019 (12) SCC 398]. To be noted further that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the endorsement to drive the transport vehicle being LMV is concerned, the law is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mukund Dewangan Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited - 2017 (14) SCC 663 and doubt was raised on the issue Mukund Dewangan (supra) and therefore recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and others – 2024 INSC 840 has held as under:
“All Transport Vehicles are not Light Motor Vehicles but some may fall within the class of LMVs which is represented by the overlapping section. The inference therefore is that if the transport vehicle falls under the definition of Light Motor Vehicle in Section 2(21), the additional requirements as outlined in the provisions noticed above, need not be satisfied by a person holding a driving licence for a 'Light Motor Vehicle' class. Consequently, a separate endorsement of a Transport Vehicle is not necessary as the LMV license would suffice for vehicles below 7500 kg weight. Such an interpretation would harmonize the statutory provisions by requiring the additional factors only for those Transport vehicles whose gross weight exceeds 7500 kg," the Court observed in the judgment.
"A harmonious construction of both sections (Sections 2(21) and 3) can however reach us to a conclusion that for LMV licence holders, a separate endorsement under 'Transport Vehicle' class would be unnecessary for driving LMV class of vehicles. In our interpretation and understanding, it would be logical to hold that the additional licensing requirements will have no application for the LMV class of vehicles but will be needed only for such 'Transport Vehicles', which by virtue of their gross weight fall in the Medium and Heavy category. Such a construction would also fulfill the legislative purpose which is to ensure road safety by requiring only those individuals who intend to operate medium and heavy vehicles, to satisfy the additional licensing criteria.In our view, the age restrictions outlined in Section 4, the requirement of a medical certificate, and the criteria under Section 7 should reasonably apply only for the medium and heavy transport vehicles whose gross weight will be above 7500 Kg. Such an interpretation would fulfill the objective of the MV Act to provide compensation to victims of road accidents while maintaining a commensurate licensing regime for drivers."
“131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are a
