CMA(MD)No.888 of 2011

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED 18.02.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

C.M.A(MD)No.888 of 2011

and

M.P(MD)No.3 of 2011

Branch Manager

New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,

77/78, South Car Street,

Sivakasi.

..Appellant/2^nd Respondent

vs.

1.M.Mariammal

2.M.Shenbagavalli

3.M.Rajeswaran

4.M.Vigneswaran

5.M.Nimala Devi

6.Lakshmiammal

(Minors R3 to R5 declared as major vide

Judgment dated 18.02.2021) ..Respondent 1 to 6/Petitioners

7.S.Amutha

..7^th Respondents/1^st Respondent

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor

Vehicles Act 1988 against the award dated 06.11.2009 made in MCOP

No.52 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub

Court, Sivakasi.

For Appellant

:Mr.N.Dlipkumar

For Respondents :Mr.Michael Bharathi (for R1 to R5)

No appearance for R7

R6 – Dismissed

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the award

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Sivakasi passed in

MCOP No.52 of 2005 dated 06.11.2009.

2.This is the case of the fatal accident. The claimants are

the legal heirs of the deceased Mahendran. According to the

claimants, on 06.03.2005, the deceased and his brother one

Chidambaram were travelling in a motorcycle bearing registration

No.TN-67-R-8592. The deceased was a rider and his brother was

pillion rider. While so, the rider of the motorcycle bearing

registration No.TN-67-R-8473, who was following the vehicle of the

deceased, hit against the two wheeler, in which, the deceased was a

1/4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

CMA(MD)No.888 of 2011

rider. In the accident, the deceased died on the spot.

3.The prime contention of the appellant is that the rider of

the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving

license and hence, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance

Company. In order to prove the defense, they examined three

witnesses on their side and marked two documents. Ex.P.4 produced

on the side of the claimants shows that the rider of the offending

vehicle was having licence to driver light motor vehicle. The

Tribunal accepting the fact that the rider of the two wheeler was

having licence only to drive light motor vehicle, observed that the

appellant has not established that the rider was disqualified from

holding or obtaining license in respect of the two wheeler to make

the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. In this regard,

it is useful to refer the Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

which reads thus:-

“10. Form and contents of Licence to drive.-

(1) Every Learner's Licence and Driving Licence,

except a Driving Licence issued under Section 18, shall

be in such form and shall contain such information as may

be prescribed by the Central Government.

(2) A Leaner's Licence or, as the case may be,

Driving Licence shall also be expressed as entitling the

holder to drive a Motor Vehicle of one more of the

following classes, namely, -

(a) Motorcycle without Gear;

(b) Motorcycle with Gear;

(c) invalid carriage;

(d) Light Motor Vehicle;

(e) Transport Vehicle;

(i) Road-Roller

(j) Motor Vehicle of a specified description.”

4.A plain reading of the above provision would make it clear

that the above Section was amended in the year 1994 prescribing

Forms and contents of license to drive different category of

vehicles. Therefore, a person, who wants to drive a two wheeler, is

required to take a separate licence of driving a two wheeler.

However, the Tribunal overlooking the amendment brought into the

Motor Vehicles Act, held that the person who is having light motor

vehicle, is entitled to drive a two wheeler.

5.An identical issue came up for consideration before the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaharulnisha

and others (AIR 200