Punjab-Haryana High Court
Uday Singh And Anr vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. ... on 16 May, 2018
Author: Avneesh Jhingan
Bench: Avneesh Jhingan
FAO No. 3678 of 2015 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 3678 of 2015
Date of decision:- 16.05.2018
Uday Singh and another
---Appellants.
Versus
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and others
---Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Present:- Mr. J. S. Mehndiratta, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. D. K. Prajapati, Advocate, for
Mr. R. S. Madaan, Advocate,
for Insurance Company.
Mr.S. S. Momi, Advocate,
for the respondent Nos. 2,6 and 7.
AVNEESH JHINGAN J. (Oral)
The issue involved in the present appeal is whether a driving licence authorizing a person to drive a tractor is valid to drive a tractor attached with trolley, or a separate endorsement is required for driving transport vehicle.
The driver and owner of tractor trolley bearing registration No.HR-07-H-1158 (for short 'the offending vehicle') filed the instant appeal against award dated 26.02.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 00:48:05 ::: FAO No. 3678 of 2015 2 Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short 'the Trubunal').
On 03.04.2013, a motor vehicular accident took place. Vinod Kumar was driving his Tata Magic bearing registration No. HR-36-C-9472.
When he reached near Jai Ambay Rice Mill, Shahabad, his vehicle was struck by the offending vehicle. As a result of the accident, Vinod Kumar died on the spot. FIR No. 101 dated 03.04.2013 was registered in Police Station Shahabad.
A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') was filed by legal heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal held that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 17,62,488/-
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Tribunal gave recovery rights to the insurer as the driver was holding a driving licence to drive LMV, tractor, MC WG, Car, Jeep, NT but he was driving a tractor attached with trolley and there was no endorsement for driving transport vehicle.
Aggrieved of the recovery rights, the present appeal has been filed.
The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the licence to drive tractor or LMV was not valid for driving a tractor attached with trolley; is not well founded.
The issue raised has two aspects. Firstly, whether tractor trolley would be covered within ambit of driving licence for LMV and tractor?
Secondly, merely because trolley is attached to tractor; whether this will change the class of vehicle from tractor to transport vehicle?
There is no dispute that on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid licence. The said licence authorized 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 00:48:05 ::: FAO No. 3678 of 2015 3 him to drive LMV and the tractor. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of this Court in case Subhash Chand and others versus Satya Rani and others 2013(4) PLR 329 to hold that since there was no special endorsement as per Section 3 of the Act, therefore, the driver was not authorized to drive a tractor attached with trolley.
The issue is no longer res-integra. Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 held as under:-
"54. The vehicle involved was a tractor which was used for carrying goods. The goods were carried in a trailer attached to it. It was held that if a driver was holding an effective licence to drive a tractor, he could validly drive the tractor attached to a trailer. The contention that it was a transport vehicle, as the tractor was attached to a trailer and as such the driver was not holding a valid licence, was rejected. This Court has laid down thus:
"9. Relying on these definitions, Mr. S.C. Sharda submitted that admittedly the trailer was filled with stones. He submitted that once a trailer was attached to the tractor the tractor became a transport vehicle as it was used for carriage of goods. He submitted that Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for grant of licences to drive specific types of vehicles. He submitted that the driver only had a licence to drive a tractor. He submitted that the driver did not have a licence to drive a transport vehicle. He submitted that therefore it could not be said that the driver had an effective and valid driving licence to drive a goods carriage or a transport
3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 00:48:05 ::: FAO No. 3678 of 2015 4 vehicle. He submitted that thus the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive the type of vehicle he was driving. He submitted that as the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, the Insurance Co. could not be made liable. He submitted that the High Court was right in holding so.
10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly Under Section 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to be accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 00:48:05 ::: FAO No. 3678 of 2015 5 category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle. (emphesis supplied) XXX XXX XXX Section 10(2) (a) to (j) lays down the classes of vehicles to be driven not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided, if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of Section 10(2). This Court has rightly observed in Nagashetty (supra) that in case submission to the contrary is accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle it by itself does not mean that driver ceased to have valid driving licence. In our considered opinion, even if such a vehicle is treated as transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle class, legal position would not change and driver would still have a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class, whether it is a transport vehicle or a private car/tractor attached with trolley or used for carrying goods in the form of transport vehicle. The ultimate conclusion in Nagashetty 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 00:48:05 ::: FAO No. 3678 of 2015 6 (supra) is correct, however, for the reasons as explained by us.
XXX XXX XXX '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 28.3.2001 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 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 00:48:05 ::: FAO No. 3678 of 2015 7 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.
It was held that no separate endorsement on licence is required to drive transport vehicle of a light motor vehicle classes i.e. LMV, tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. The driving licence to drive such class of vehicles would be a valid for driving transport vehicles of the said class.
The Supreme Court in the latest decision of Sant Lal versus Rajesh and others, (2017) 8 SCC 590 following the decision of Mukund Dewangan's case (Supra) held that driving licence of LMV class or tractor needs no separate endorsement on the driving licence for driving a tractor to which trolley is attached. The answer to first aspect of contention is decided in favour of appellants i.e. driver holding valid licence for tractor or LMV is authorized to drive tractor with trailer attached to it.
7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 00:48:05 ::: FAO No. 3678 of 2015 8 A Division Bench of this Court in case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Surinder, 2004(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 211 held that as under:-
"The offending vehicle i.e. Tractor was insured comprehensively against a premium of Rs.2,076/- with the appellant-company. Now the question to be seen is whether any agriculture instrument attached to the tractor is deemed to be insured along with the tractor. The word 'tractor' has been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under:-
"The tractor means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load other than (the equipments used for the purpose) or propulsion but excludes a road roller."
A perusal of the definition of word 'tractor' shows that tractor itself is not able to carry any load without the equipments.
Therefore, any equipment attached to the tractor is a part of the tractor and covered under the insurance policy."
It was held that any equipment attached to tractor becomes part of tractor and is covered in definition under Section 2(44) of the Act.
Tractor in itself has no use. It is only the attachments to it that makes it suitable for agriculture purpose or for carrying load. If the contention raised by the appellant is accepted, then for every type of equipment, a different endorsement would be required on the driving licence authorizing to drive tractor. Thus, the second aspect of contention is answered, in view of the definition of tractor, merely because trolley is attached to tractor, therefore, it does not become transport vehicle.
In view of the above decisions, the present appeal is allowed and 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 00:48:05 ::: FAO No. 3678 of 2015 9 recovery rights given to the insurance company are set aside. Accordingly, the award dated 26.02.2015 is modified to the above extent.
16.05.2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN)
Riya Grover JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 00:48:05 :::