A holder of a light motor vehicle driving licence is entitled to drive transport vehicles of the same class, and an insurer cannot evade third-party liability unless it proves that a fundamental breach of licensing conditions by the owner directly contributed to the accident.

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1257/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HOLALKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal seeks to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 02.01.2017 in MVC No.1257/2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holalkere (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,000/- with cost and interest to the respondent No.1/claimant. The challenge in the present appeal is by the owner of the vehicle.

2. None appears for the respondent No.1/claimant despite service. Given the pendency of the appeal from 2017, the appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the vehicle draws attention of the Court to the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.2609/2017 filed by the appellant herein, challenging the judgment passed in the connected MVC No.1258/2015 (Sri. Prakashsingh Holal Vs. Sri. Srinviasa and Others), and submits that in the said appeal, the Coordinate bench of this Court has held that fastening of liability on the owner cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ¹1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 Thus, he submits that the liability cannot be fastened on the owner of the vehicle either, who is the appellant in the present case.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company submits that the law in this behalf is now settled by the judgment of Mukund Dewangan’s case that where the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence, it will not absolve the Insurance Company of its liability.

5. The Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan’s case has held that a driving licence is required with respect to the class of vehicles and not the type of vehicles and consequently, as a light motor vehicle includes a transport vehicle, a holder of a light motor vehicle licence is competent to drive all vehicles of that class, including transport vehicles, and no separate endorsement is required. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract in Mukund Dewangan’s case below:

“59. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28-3-2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in Section 2(21) and the provisions of Section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the 1989 Rules, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of “light motor vehicles” and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expr