Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd vs Asha Devi And Ors on 4 October, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
MOHIT 2024:-PHHC:133013 § FAO-3947-2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 FAO-3947-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision 04.10.2024 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHANDIGARH beeees Appellant Versus ASHA DEVI AND OTHERS beeeee Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA ok 3k ok ok Present: Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate for Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Shoib Khan, Advocate for respondent No.3. 3K 3s 2 3 SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company against the award dated 21.07.2007 passed by learned Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby the contention of the Insurance Company with regard to the Exhibit R-1, licence of Nirmal Singh, that the same was valid for driving scooter, motorcycle, car, jeep and tractor and was not valid for three-wheeler is rejected and the Insurance Company is held liable to pay the amount of compensation.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are that it is the case of the petitioners that on 4.3.2006 at about 12.45 PM Master Pinku was sitting behind a shop in Raipur Kalan, where a three-wheeler bearing No. HR-37B-1399 came from Baltana side and hit the deceased. Due to this accident deceased received serious injuries and was taken to hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of accident.
2024.10.15 13:30 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document MOHIT 2024:-PHHC:133013 § FAO-3947-2007 (O&M) 2
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: -
I) Whether Pinku, son of Ram Dass died on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road side vehicular accident which has occurred on 4.3.2006 in the area of Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh on account of use of three wheeler No. HR-37B-1399 owned by respondent No.1? OPP
2) | Whether the claimant are entitled to be compensated for the death of Pinku having occurred in the accident, if so, to what extent and from who? OPP
3) | Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so its effect? OPR-3
4) Relief.
5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum and the Insurance Company appellant/respondent No.2 was held liable to pay the compensation, Hence, the Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 filed the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that respondent No.1 was driving a three-wheeler, which is a commercial vehicle, whereas Ex. R-1, licence of respondent No.1 shows that the same was valid for driving scooter, motorcycle, car, jeep and tractor only.
7. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents contend that the liability of Insurance Company has rightly been fixed to pay the compensation.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole 2024.10.15 Stecord of this case.
| attest to the integrity of this document FAO-3947-2007 (O&M) 3
9. 20274 PRHC 13304 The relevant portion of the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is reproduced as under:-
MOHIT 2024.10.15 13:30 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "19. On the point of liability of insurance company to pay the amount of compensation, it was contended by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that Ex.R1 licence of Nirmal Singh shows that the same was valid for driving scooter, motorcycle, car, jeep and tractor. This licence was not valid for three wheeler as respondent No. 1 was driving the three wheeler which is a commercial vehicle; therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. In support of her contention learned counsel for insurance company cited National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kusum Rai and others 2006ACJ 1336.
20. The proposition expounded in the afore cited judgment is not disputed. However, the acts of the afore-cited judgment are of identical to the case. In the afore-cited case, the driver was possessing a licence to drive light motor vehicle whereas he was driving a jeep plied as a taxi, a commercial vehicle. Under those circumstances, it was held that there was breach of conditions of contract of insurance by the insured and the Insurance Company is exempted from liability. In the case in hand, the three wheeler which was being insured with respondent No.2 was also insured for carrying passengers. A person who is possessing driving licence to drive scooter, motor cycle, car, jeep and tractor can also drive three wheeler. Simply because by a three wheeler the passengers were being carried it would not make any difference. There is nothing on record to show that the alleged breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle regarding holding of a valid driving licence by the driver was so fundamental that it had contributed to the cause of accident. There is no evidence on the file to show that a driving of a three wheeler is so different that a person holding licence of scooter, motorcycle, car, jeep & tractor cannot drive a three wheeler. It has been held in National Insurance Company Versus Chander Pal and another 2005 2) Latest Judicial Report page 400 and another judgment National Insurance Company Versus Chand MOHIT 2024.10.15 13:30 20274 PRHC 13304 FAO-3947-2007 (O&M) 4 Kaur and others 2005 (2) Latest Judicial Reports 161 that mere absence, fake or valid driving licence of the driver by itself would not be sufficient for absolving the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation to the petitioners or to make the owner of the vehicle liable to pay the compensation amount.
21. As a result, I conclude to hold that on this account the Insurance Company cannot absolve itself from its liability to pay the amount of compensation. Consequently, I hold that respondent No.1, being driver and owner and respondent No.2 insurer, are Jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners. Thus, I hold this issue in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
10. I do not find any infirmity in the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal in rejecting the contention of the appellant/respondent No.2 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company, with respect to the possessing of the driving licence to drive scooter, motorcycle, car, jeep and tractor and not three-wheeler. The issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is no longer res-integra and decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company" 2017(4) TAC 11, wherein it was held that when a driver is holding a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle', he is competent to drive a 'transport vehicle' of that category without specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. The relevant paras of the same are reproduced 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 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 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024: PHHC. 13304 ee FAO-3947-2007 (O&M) 5 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 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act vont No.54/1994 w.ef, 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Tattest to the accuracy and section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section integrity of this document 20274 PRHC 13304 FAO-3947-2007 (O&M) 6 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.
11. Keeping in view ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of "Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company" (supra), the finding of Tribunal is hereby affirmed.
12. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE October 04, 2024 Mohit Bishnoi Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes MOHIT 2024.10.15 13:30 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document