National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Jaya Rajendra Kumar Nanda on 5 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: 1(2004)CPJ25(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimini, Member
1. This Revision Petition arises out of the order passed by State Commission upholding the order of the District Forum which had awarded Rs.44,500/- against the insurance claim filed by the Respondent/Complainant Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs.
2. Brief facts relevant to the case are that the Respondent/Complainant was the owner of a Taxi, which was insured with the Petitioner company, met with an accident on 20.6.93 within the insured period 24.8.1992 to 23.8.1993. F.I.R. was lodged. Survey was carried out, but finally the Petitioner Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the Driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence. It is in these conditions that the Respondent/Complainant moved the District Forum seeking relief of Rs.44,500/- claim along with interest @ 18% Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.4,000/- as costs. After hearing both the parties the District Forum allowed the complaint that since the Driver of the accident vehicle had a valid licence to drive medium goods vehicle, therefore, the licence is valid for driving light vehicle also Petitioner's appeal filed before the State Commission was also dismissed on the same grounds. It is against this order that the Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition before us. The Respondent, being absent in spite of notice was moved parte.
3. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Sec 2(10) of the Motor Vehicle Act defines Driving Licence as to "mean the licence issued by a competent authority under clause 11 authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description." If one sees the Driving licence of Driver Puran Singh who was driving the Taxi at the time of accident, it clearly states that the licence is to drive 'medium goods vehicle' and also hold Badge Number for 'Autorickshaw'. These entries do not permit the Driver to drive L.M.V. Both the lower fora have erred in law and fact to decide that if the Driver had a licence to medium goods vehicle, he could drive light motor vehicle. The order of both the lower fora are bad in law and need to be set aside.
4. We see that Section 2(23) of Motor Vehicle Act defines 'Medium Goods Vehicle' as follows:
"Medium Goods Vehicle means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle "thus a clear distinction is made between the two classes of vehicles namely medium goods vehicle and a light motor vehicle qualifying Medium Goods Vehicle as a class by itself. Section 10(2) of M.V.A. reads as follows:
" A learning licence or as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely;
a) light motor vehicle
b)
c).....
d).....
e) Medium Goods Vehicle
5. The word'.....expressed as entitling the holder.....'is to mean that if it is the intent of the Licensing Authority to entitle any eligible person to drive any class of vehicle mentioned in Section 10(2) of the Act, then the Driving licence must clearly and specifically carry such expression. This view is further strengthened by the provision of Section 2(10) of M.V.A. which stipulates that "Driving Licence means.....authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description of impulses supplied. The word 'Class' is amplified and categorised in Section 10(2) of M.V.A. All these provisions read together in a homogenous manner leave no doubt in our mind that the driver must have a driving licence to drive a particular class(es) of vehicle and it is only in respect of these class(es) that the Driving Licence shall be deemed effective'. It is admitted position that in the instant case the Driver Puran Singh's licence was valid for driving Medium Goods Vehicle and Autoricksaw whereas the vehicle he was driving was an Ambassador Car as a Taxi. Legal position is that by no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that if one has a driving licence for medium goods vehicle, it automatically entitles him to drive a Light Motor Vehicle.
6. In the light of the position of law as discussed, we find that the Driver did not have effective Driving Licence to drive a Taxi. In view of this we are unable to sustain the Orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum which are set aside. Petitioner revision petition is allowed. No order on costs.163.