Madhya Pradesh High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Munni Bai And Ors. on 22 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2002ACJ1903
Author: A.K. Mishra
Bench: A.K. Mishra
JUDGMENT A.K. Mishra, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd., being aggrieved by the award dated 12.11.1999 passed in Claim Case No. 51 of 1999.
2. Deceased Nemichand met with an accident on 19.2.1999, while he was going from Sagar to Rahatgarh in a jeep bearing registration No. MP 15-D 5637. The jeep was driven by respondent Ramji, in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which it turned turtle. Nemichand sustained injuries and on the way to hospital he died. Legal representatives of deceased Nemichand, i.e., his widow, sons and daughters claimed the compensation of Rs. 8,61,000.
3. The insurer in the written statement denied its liability and contended that the jeep in question was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as it was insured for private use only. It is further contended by the counsel appearing for the appellant, that the jeep in question was being used as a taxi hence, it was not liable to indemnify. The driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence and as such for this reason also the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation.
4. The Claims Tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs. 1,71,000 and being aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the insurance company could not be held liable to pay the compensation for the reason that driver was not possessing a valid driving licence to drive a maxi cab. Since it is a transport vehicle and even though the driver may be possessing a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but without the endorsement of the transport authority enabling him to drive a maxi cab it could not be said that the driver was possessed of a requisite licence to drive the maxi cab.
6. Vehicle in question was Commander Mahindra and its seating capacity is nine plus one person. Exh. D-5 contains the particulars of driving licence which indicates that licence was issued on 13.6.1994 and is valid till 25.7.2000 and it related to the light motor vehicle only. The original driving licence has not been placed on record. Exh. D-5 evinces the factum of issuance of licence and its renewal period.
7. There is no dispute that the driver was having the licence to drive the light motor vehicle. Light motor vehicle has been defined in section 2(21) which runs as under:
light motor vehicle' means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms.
It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that unladen weight of the vehicle in question was less than 7500 kilograms. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it being a transport vehicle it should have been further endorsed that the driver was having the authority to use it as a public service vehicle. Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act which runs as under:
transport vehicle' means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.
8. Term maxi cab has been defined in section 2(22) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which runs as under:
maxi cab' means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward.
9. In the registration particulars Exh. D-2 filed by the insurance company the class of the vehicle has been defined to be light motor vehicle, and it has been categorised as a maxi cab. Driver was undis-putedly possessing the driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle only. Thus the submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any substance as per the particulars mentioned in Exh. D-2 as the driver was authorised to drive the light motor vehicle.
10. It may be seen that the original registration particulars have not been placed on record. Whatever, that may be, there is further cutting in the category of vehicle, initially the category of the vehicle in question was shown to be light motor vehicle and later on maxi cab was mentioned in its place. Whatever that may be the class of the vehicle is still reflected in column No. 4 of particulars of registration of vehicle as light motor vehicle. Thus the only submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of substance.
In the result, appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.