A driver licensed for light motor vehicles is not authorized to drive a transport vehicle, even if its weight is classified as light motor vehicle.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Jagdish Vyas, for the petitioner.

Mr.Ravi Bhansalia, for the respondents.

Reportable

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 23.10.08 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, District Legal Services Authority, Bhilwara, allowing the application preferred by the first respondent herein under Section 20 read with Section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 ( for short “the Act”) and consequently directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 64,995/- alongwith interest @ 10% for the period commencing from 13.4.05. It is further ordered that if the amount is not paid within a period of two months, the amount payable shall carry interest @ 12%.

2. The relevant facts are that the first respondent's vehicle RJ-06-E-2062, an ambulance car, was insured with the Petitioner Insurance Company for the period 21.2.04 to 20.2.05. On 12.10.04, on account of vehicular accident, the said vehicle was badly damaged. After spot survey and final survey, the Authorised Surveyer and the Loss Assessor assessed the net loss at Rs.64,995.34, subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Petitioner Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by Mr.Rameshwar Lal Jat, who was not authorised to drive the transport vehicle. According to the Petitioner Insurance Company, the first respondent willfully violated the policy condition by handing over the vehicle to a person who was not possessing a valid and effective driving license to drive the transport vehicle.

3. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 20 read with Section 22 of the Act before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Legal Services Authority, Bhilwara, seeking directions to the Petitioner Insurance Company, to pay the loss caused to the vehicle, quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. That apart, the petitioner claimed compensation for mental harassment quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

4. The claim petition was contested by the Petitioner Insurance Company by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that at the time of the accident, the person driving the vehicle was holding the license authorising him to drive only the Motor Cycle with gear and Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) other than transport vehicle and therefore, the first respondent herein having violated the conditions of the policy, was not entitled to claim the damages.

5. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Permanent Lok Adalat observed that the weight of the vehicle Maruti Van involved in the accident was 7.4 quintal and thus, being of the weight less than 7.5 quintal, the said vehicle falls within the definition of LMV and does not fall within the category of Commercial Vehicle or Goods Transport Vehicle and therefore, the Petitioner Insurance Company was not justified in repudiating the claim. Accordingly, the application preferred by the first respondent has been allowed and the Petitioner Insurance Company has been directed to pay the amount to the first respondent as indicated above. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Insurance Company reiterating the stand taken before the Permanent Lok Adalat submitted that the vehicle involved in the accident was an ambulance car, which falls within the definition of 'transport vehicle' and the driver of the vehicle who was authorised to drive LMV other than transport vehicle, was obviously not authorised to drive the transport vehicle, even if its gross weight was less than 7500 kg. and therefore, the first respondent having violated the condition of the policy was not entitled to claim compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle. In support of the contention, lea