Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd. ... vs Motor Accident Claim ... on 10 December, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2692
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved On:- 02.12.2019 Pronounced On:- 10.12.2019 Court No.-18 (1) FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 240 of 2013 Appellant :- United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Dy. Manager Respondent :- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J.Room No.5,Raebareli &Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Abdul Samad,Rahul Singh 'Rana',Rajesh Kumar Singh With (2) FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 242 of 2013 Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Dy. Manager Respondent :- Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal / A.D.J.,Room No.-5,Raebareli Counsel for Appellant :- Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Singh ' Rana',Rajesh Kumar Singh With (3) FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 243 of 2013 Appellant :- United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Dy. Manager Respondent :- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J.Room No.5,Raebareli &Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Singh 'Rana' With (4) FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 244 of 2013 Appellant :- United India Insurance Company Ltd.Through Its Dy. Manager Respondent :- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J.Room No.5,Raebareli &Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Abdul Samad,Rahul Singh Rana And (5) FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 368 of 2013 Appellant :- United India Insurance Company Ltd. Thr.Its Regional Manager Respondent :- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J.,Room No.5 & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Singh Rana,Rajesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Ved Prakash Vaish, J.
1. Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 7 as well as Sri Rahul Singh 'Rana', learned counsel for respondents No.8 and 9 in FAFO No.240 of 2013, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Singh 'Rana', learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 in FAFO No.242 of 2013, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Singh 'Rana', learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 in FAFO No.243 of 2013, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Singh 'Rana', learned counsel for respondents No.8 and 9 in FAFO No.244 of 2013 and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Singh 'Rana', learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 in FAFO No.368 of 2013.
2. These five appeals give rise to common questions of law in accident claim cases in motor vehicular accidents and hence, have been taken up for being decided together by this common judgment.
3. The background facts leading to these appeals in each case may be taken note of at the outset in chronological order.
Case 'A':- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.240 of 2013
4. This appeal has arisen out of award dated 31st August, 2012 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), Raebareli in M.A.C. No.214 of 2011 instituted by respondents No.2 to 7 herein (the claimants). The claim case had been presented by Sahira widow of the deceased and children of the deceased named Ashikjama who had died in the accident that occurred on 11th May, 2011 involving rash driving of Tata 207 bearing Registration No. UP 33 T 4339 (the offending vehicle), admittedly, insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. (the appellant). The Tribunal, after inquiry, by the impugned judgment upheld the case of the claimants that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the said offending vehicle by Jai Singh (first respondent before the Tribunal). The offending vehicle was registered in the name of Ashish Kumar Singh (second respondent before the Tribunal). The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,78,300/- (rupees two lacs seventy eight thousand three hundred only) on account of the death of Ashik Zama with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
Case 'B' :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.242 of 2013
5. The insurance company by filing appeal (FAFO No.242 of 2013) impugns the award dated 03rd September, 2012 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C. No.215 of 2011. The claim case was presented by respondents No.2 to 4 herein, in respect of death of Maasooma W/o Mohd. Nasrulla (claimant No.1) and mother of Mohd. Lateef and Mohd. Raees, in the accident that occurred on 11th May, 2011 involving rash driving of Tata 207 bearing Registration No. UP 33 T 4339 (the offending vehicle), admittedly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. (the appellant). The Tribunal, after inquiry, vide impugned judgment upheld the case of the claimants that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the said offending vehicle by Jai Singh (first respondent before the Tribunal). The offending vehicle was registered in the name of Ashish Kumar Singh (second respondent before the Tribunal). The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.93,870/- (rupees ninety three thousand eight hundred seventy only) along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
Case 'C' :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.243 of 2013
6. The motor vehicular accident which is subject matter of this appeal occurred on 11th May, 2011 involving Tata 207 bearing Registration No. UP 33 T 4339 (the offending vehicle) driven by Jai Singh (first respondent before the Tribunal), the same was owned by Ashish Kumar Singh (second respondent before the Tribunal). The claim petition was presented by Sri Gareeb Khan and Hatunnisha, parents of Ibrar. The Tribunal by judgment dated 31st August, 2012 in M.A.C. No.213 of 2011 upheld the case of the claimants that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the said offending vehicle by Jai Singh (first respondent before the Tribunal). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,34,500/- (rupees one lac thirty four thousand five hundred only) along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
Case 'D' :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.244 of 2013
7. This appeal arises out of award dated 10th September, 2012 of the Tribunal in accident claim case (M.A.C. No.216 of 2011) instituted by Sri Ibrahim husband of the deceased, and claimants No.2 to 6, who are children of the deceased, who were respondents No.2 to 7 in the appeal, seeking compensation on account of death of Bittan in motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 11th May, 2011 involving negligent driving of Tata 207 bearing Registration No. UP 33 T 4339 (the offending vehicle). The said offending vehicle was being driven by Jai Singh (first respondent before the Tribunal) and was registered in the name of Ashish Kumar Singh (second respondent before the Tribunal). Admittedly, the said vehicle was registered with United India Insurance Company Ltd. (the insurer). The Tribunal, by the impugned award upheld the case about negligent driving and fasten the liability against the insurer to pay compensation of Rs.1,21,950/- (rupees one lac twenty one thousand nine hundred fifty only) along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
Case 'E' :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.368 of 2013
8. This appeal is directed against the award dated 11th September, 2012 of the Tribunal in accident claim case (M.A.C. No.232 of 2011) instituted by Sharifan and Yar Mohammad (claimants), second and third respondents in the appeal, seeking compensation for the death of Abdul Razzak in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 11th September, 2011, involving Tata 207 bearing Registration No. UP 33 T 4339 (the offending vehicle), which was admittedly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. (the insurer). By the impugned award, the Tribunal upheld the case of the claimants that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the said offending vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,91,500/- (rupees one lac ninety one thousand five hundred only) along with interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
9. In all the above captioned appeals, learned counsel for the appellant contended that driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was for light vehicles only and thus, the driver was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle, there being no endorsement on the license of the driver for driving the commercial vehicle. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. I have also carefully gone through the material available on record.
11. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under:
" Section 3- Necessity for driving Lincense-
(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than (a motor cab or motor cycle) hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub section 2 of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so.
(2) the conditions subject to which sub section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3). Section 10 of the Act provides for classes of the driving licence."
12. The 'transport vehicle' is defined in Section 2 (47) of the Act to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Section 41 provides for registration of Motor vehicles.
13. The position in law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Mukund Devgan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.', 2017 (4) TAC 11, wherein it has been held that even where the driver was holding a driving license which was valid for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), whereas the vehicle involved is Light Goods Vehicle (LGV), the insurance company is not entitled to any recovery rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"46. 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 vehicles 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 28th March, 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 Rules of 1989, 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 expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in Section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:
(i) ''Light motor vehicle' as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ''unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10 (2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10 (2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28th March, 2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in Section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in Section 10 (2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in Section 10 (2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in Section 10 (2) (h) with expression ''transport vehicle' as substituted in Section 10 (2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of Section 10 (2)(d) and Section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."
14. A similar view has been taken by Delhi High Court in 'New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Shubhash Rastogi and others', in M.A.C. Appeal No.438 of 2009 decided on 25.07.2017 and in another decision in the case of 'Ram Narayan Verma vs. Rajni and others (Reliance General Insurance Company Limited)', M.A.C. Appeal No.478 of 2017 decided on 27.07.2017.
15. Furthermore, the difference between the category of LMV (NT) and that of LMV (commercial) has been done away with by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India vide its Circular No. RT-1102/44/2017-MVI dated 16.04.2018, while following the dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Devgan's case (supra). That being so, the insurance company is held liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants in all these appeals. It cannot be allowed to escape from its liability to indemnify the insured so far as payment of compensation is concerned as it is duty bound to indemnify the insured under the law.
16. No other submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
17. In the result, all the appeals are devoid of any merit, same deserve to be dismissed and the same are hereby dismissed.
18. The appellant, insurance company shall be liable to deposit the requisite amount in all these appeals with the Tribunal within fourty five days, for it to be released to the claimants.
19. The statutory amounts, if deposited, in above appeals, shall be refunded after the Registry has recorded satisfaction that the directions have been complied with.
20. The appeals and the pending applications stand disposed of in above terms.
21. Lower court record(s) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the Tribunal(s) immediately.
(Ved Prakash Vaish) Judge Order Date :- 10th Dec., 2019 cks/-