Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Brijkishore Ram Naresh Gupta on 8 August, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3766/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3766 of 2014
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3767 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
BRIJKISHORE RAM NARESH GUPTA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 08/08/2024
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeals are filed by the appellant -
Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Page 1 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 08 21:25:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3766/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined Act, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux.), Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.627 of 1999 and 629 of 1999, by which, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions by awarding compensation to be paid to claimant/s, by holding opponents liable, jointly and severally.
2. The facts of the present appeal are as under :
2.1 The claimant/s filed the claim petition stating that the claimants were standing on 1.3.1999 and he was standing near the gram-peanut stall to get peanuts near Kailash Video Cinema at Ganeshnagar Pandesara, at that time, the driver of the offending vehicle came driving his tempo no.GJ.5V.815 rashly and negligently and dashed with the handcart, due to which they received injuries and therefore the claim petitions are filed claiming compensation.
2.2 The notices were served to the opponents. Opponent No.3-insurance company filed the written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. The issues were framed by the Tribunal. Oral as well as documentary evidence were led before the Tribunal. After hearing the submissions made by the rival parties, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim Page 2 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 08 21:25:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3766/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined petition(s) and awarded compensation as noted above. 2.3 Hence, the insurance company-original opponent no.3 has filed the present appeals before this Court.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company has assailed the impugned judgment and award only on the ground of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. tempo insured with the appellant was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident; that the driver was not authorized to drive the passenger/goods vehicle and therefore the appellant-insurance company ought to have been exonerated from the liability to pay the amount, as there is breach of terms of the policy committed by the driver of the said vehicle. He, therefore, prays to allow these appeals.
4. Per Contra, learned advocate for the claimant/s, has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly held the said vehicle negligent solely for the accident and also considering the documentary and oral evidence led before it, the FIR, panchanama etc., has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award, which is not required to be interfered with in this appeal. He submitted that the driver of the tempo is holding a LMV licence at the time of accident and the Page 3 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 08 21:25:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3766/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined licence was in existence at the time of the accident and therefore, it cannot be said there is breach of conditions of the policy. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss these appeals.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the respective parties. I have perused the material produced on record. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. I have also considered the pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal.
6. The only contention which is raised in this appeal with regard to the driver not having a valid and effective licence on the date of the accident, on perusing the material on record, it is clear that the licence of the driver was of LMV and the licence was in existence on the day of the accident.
7. A reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, more particularly Paras : 42, 43, 45 and 46, which are as under, would be fruitful:
"42. In Nagashetty (AIR 2001 SC 3356) (supra), 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 Page 4 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 08 21:25:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3766/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined 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 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 so holding.
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 Page 5 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 08 21:25:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3766/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined 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 category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle.
11. In this case, we find that the Insurance Company when issuing the insurance policy, had also so understood. The insurance policy has been issued for a tractor. In this insurance policy, an additional premium of Rs.12 has been taken for a trailer. Therefore the insurance policy covers not just the tractor but also a trailer attached to the tractor. The insurance policy provides as follows for the "persons or classes of persons entitled to drive":
'Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive - Any person including insured provided that the person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence:Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's licence may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of goods at the time of the accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, limitations as to use.' Page 6 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 08 21:25:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3766/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined
12. The policy is for a tractor. The "effective driving licence"
is thus for a tractor. The restriction on a learner driving the tractor when used for transporting goods shows that the policy itself contemplates that the tractor could be used for carriage of goods. The tractor by itself could not carry goods. The goods would be carried in a trailer attached to it. That is why the extra premium for a trailer. The restriction placed on a person holding a learner's licence i.e. not to drive when goods are being carried is not there for a permanent licence-holder. Thus a permanent licence- holder having an effective/valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods. When the policy itself so permits, the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that a person having a valid driving licence to drive a tractor would become disqualified to drive the tractor if a trailer was attached to it."
43. 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 (AIR 2001 SC 3356)(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 Page 7 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 08 21:25:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3766/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined 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 (AIR 2001 SC 3356) (supra) is correct, however, for the reasons as explained by us.
45. Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is Page 8 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 08 21:25:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3766/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 54/1994.
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 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 Page 9 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 08 21:25:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3766/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined 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 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 Page 10 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 08 21:25:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3766/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined 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."
8. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the driver of the offending tempo involved in the accident and insured with the appellant-insurance company is not having a valid licence to drive the tempo. Therefore, I do not find any point in interfering with the said finding of the learned Tribunal.
9. No other grounds are argued by the learned advocate for the appellant in this appeal. The appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed.
Page 11 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 08 21:25:45 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3766/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2024 undefined
10. In view of above, the following order is passed.
10.1 The present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
10.2 The amount lying with the Tribunal and/or in the FDR, pursuant to the order of this Court if any, shall be disbursed to the claimant, along with accrued interest thereon if any, by account payee cheque, after proper verification and after following due procedure, within a period of six weeks from today.
10.3 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 12 of 12 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 08 21:25:45 IST 2024