Chattisgarh High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt. Meena Jasuja, Anil Jasuja, Basant ... on 25 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR2008CHH45, 2008(2)MPHT39(CG)
Author: Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh
Bench: Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh
ORDER Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.
1. Heard finally.
2. In this appeal arising out of an award dated 09-10- 2007 passed by the Twelveth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Raipur (henceforth "the MACT") in Claim Case No. 34 of 2007, the short question which arises for determination is whether the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation as the respondent No. 3/driver did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a passenger carrying commercial vehicle.
3. Admittedly, the respondent No. 3/driver possessed a licence only to drive light motor vehicle (for short "LMV") and there was no endorsement on licence Ex.D-1 authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle or a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. It is also not disputed that that the offending bus i.e., Mini Bus bearing Registration No. C.G.-04/D/4509 (henceforth "the Minibus") was insured as a passenger carrying commercial vehicle under policy Ex.D-2 on the date of the accident. Admittedly, on 22-11-2006 at about 1.30 P.M., due to rash and negligent driving of Minibus by the respondent No. 3, Rounak Jasuja, aged about 1 & + years got crushed underneath the Minibus and died. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- jointly and severally against the appellant and the respondents No. 3 & 4.
4. Under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth the Act, 1988), no person shall 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. After the amendment incorporated in section 10 of the Act, 1988 with effect from 14-11-1995, a 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) Motor cycle without gear;
(b) Motor cycle with gear;
(c) Invalid carriage;
(d) Light motor vehicle;
(e) Transport vehicle;
(f) Road-roller;
(g) Motor vehicle of a specified description.
5. Under sub-section 47 of Section 2 of the Act, 1988, "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Thus, the educational institution bus falls under the category of transport vehicle. Admittedly, the said vehicle was also insured by the owner as a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. It was therefore necessary that the driver of the said Minibus ought to have been authorized by an endorsement on his licence to drive a transport vehicle or in this case, a passenger carrying commercial vehicle.
6. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai and Ors. , the Apex Court has held that in a case of this nature, the owner of a vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability to verify the fact as to whether the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid licence or not. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 6197, the Apex Court while considering a case in which on the date of accident, a 7 year old child died due to an accident with a Lorry, the driver was authorized only to drive Light Motor Vehicle, the view taken by the High Court that the owner was not expected to know as to what type of licence the driver possessed, was not accepted by the Apex Court and it was held that the appellant/insurer was not liable to indemnify the award.
7. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal 2007 AIR SCW 7677, while exonerating the insurance company from liability to pay compensation, the Apex Court placed reliance on a decision rendered by it in Chandra Prakash Saxena (SLP No. 17794 of 2004) in which the vehicle involved in accident was a Jeep Commander made by Mahindra & Mahindra, a passenger carrying commercial vehicle and the driver was holding a licence only to drive Light Motor Vehicle. It was held that the driver was not authorized to ply the vehicle in question, and therefore, the insurance company could not be held liable to pay compensation.
8. Placing implicit reliance on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and Ors. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal and Chandra Prakash Saxena (SLP No. 17794 of 2004) (Supra), I am of the considered opinion that since in the present case also the vehicle in question was a Mahindra & Mahindra Mini Bus insured as a passenger carrying commercial vehicle and fell into the category of transport vehicle being a educational institution bus, the appellant/insurance company was not liable to indemnify the award as the driver was holding a licence only to drive LMV and there was no authorization on his licence to drive a passenger carrying commercial vehicle or a transport vehicle.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. It is held that the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation which shall be recovered jointly and severally from the respondents No. 3 & 4.