Telangana High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., vs Illuri Sri Devi 4 Others on 20 October, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.700 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the award dated 18.11.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.1329 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V-Additional District Judge, Kothagudem (for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the said claim application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein seeking compensation was allowed-in-part, awarding Rs.4,28,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased Illuri Bhadram @ Veerabhadram, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.08.2011 at about 11:45 p.m on the outskirts of Mylavaram Village on Bhadrachalam-Vijayawada road. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children and claimant No.4 is the mother of the deceased. 2 According to them, on that day, the deceased was proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP 20 TV 0476 and when he reached near the fields of one S.V. Sudhakar, Jamindar, on the outskirts of Mylavaram Village on Bhadrachalam-Vijayawada road, a lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 2368 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed the auto of the deceased. As a result, the deceased and other inmates received grievous injuries. The deceased was shifted to the hospital at Mylavaram and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the same. Police, Mylavaram registered a case in crime No.210 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimants, the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 25 years at the time of accident and was auto driver, earning Rs.7,500/- per month.
4. The appellant-insurer and respondent No.5-owner of the lorry filed separate counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation.
5. On consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and 3 negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal further held on that the claimants were entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,28,800/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-insurer filed the present appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer would contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.4,28,800/- in favour of the claimants holding the appellant and respondent No.5 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal failed to consider that the lorry involved in the accident was a goods carrying commercial vehicle and the driver was having LMV non-transport licence and does not have any authorization to drive heavy vehicles and as such, the appellant- insurer cannot be held liable and the alleged compensation should be recovered from only respondent No.5-owner of the lorry.
7. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4-claimants submits that the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding the just compensation in favour of the claimants and insofar as the 4 alleged violation of required licence, the counsel further submits that the driver, who was having valid licence to drive the light motor vehicle, can drive such a Transport Vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement. The counsel relied on the following decisions MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED1, SANT LAL v. RAJESH AND OTHERS2 & NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS3.
8. The only question that arises for consideration is - whether the driver of the lorry was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and whether the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation?
9. A perusal of the impugned award, particularly para 11, discloses that the driver of the lorry was holding valid and effect driving licence bearing No.540/2007 transport valid up to 19.05.2014 and non-transport valid up to 09.12.2026 and the same 1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 2 AIR 2017 SCC 4054 3 (2004) 3 SCC 297 5 was marked as Ex.B-2. The said Ex.B-2 is also not disputed. Further, in para 27 of the award, the Tribunal has observed that on behalf of the insurance company, R.W.1, Administrative Officer, was examined and he deposed that the driver of the crime vehicle was having only a LMV non-transport licence covered under Ex.B2. R.W.2, Senior Assistant in RTA office, was examined and as per his evidence also, the driver of the crime vehicle got a licence to drive a non-transport vehicle namely LMV MCW and the driver does not have any authorisation to drive heavy goods vehicle. In his cross-examination, he again stated that as on the date of the accident, the driver possessed transport licence. However, the same was restricted to drive only motor cab. The Tribunal, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on the aspect of the driver of the offending vehicle not possessing a valid diving licence, held that the driver was having a valid licence to drive transport and non-transport vehicle and it makes no difference in driving skills for driving the transport and non-transport motor vehicle and further held that the owner of 6 the lorry and the appellant-insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4-claimants submits that the driver of the crime vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence and Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence has rightly held that the driver of the vehicle was holding valid driving licence and, accordingly, passed the impugned award. The counsel further submits that there is no error committed by the Tribunal. In the decision relied on by learned counsel in MUKUND DEWANGAN's case (1 supra), it is held in para 60.4 as under:
"The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which wee substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure ot 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."7
11. Further, in the decision relied on by learned counsel in SANT LAL's (2 supra), it is held in para 4 that:
"We have answered the question that driver having licence to driver light motor vehicle can driver such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy."
12. Keeping the Apex court decisions in view, in the instant case, undisputedly, the driver of the crime vehicle lorry possessed a valid driving licence bearing No.540/2007, transport valid up to 19.05.2014 and non-transport valid up to 09.12.2026. The driver also possessed LMV driving licence as on the date of the accident and it is a proved fact.
13. As per para 27 of the award, the Tribunal has categorically held that the driver of the crime vehicle was possessing a licence to drive non-transport vehicle, namely LMV MCW and the driver does not have any authorization to drive heavy goods vehicle. In cross-examination, R.W.2 stated that the driver of the vehicle was possessing licence for transport vehicle also to drive only the 8 motor cab and not to drive the heavy goods vehicle. However, the evidence on record did not establish that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a driving licence, but driving heavy goods vehicle and that was the main or contributory cause for the accident and the evidence did not show that the driver was not possessing the requisite valid driving licence due to which the accident occurred. In the said circumstances, the insurer will not be allowed to escape from its liability concerning the driving licence.
14. Though the insurer has taken the plea of breach of licence conditions, the Tribunal has rightly adjudicated the case and decided that the insurer and insured are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants.
15. Therefore, after considering the evidence on record and relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, I am of the view that as the driver of the crime vehicle was possessing transport and non-transport driving licence as on the date of the accident and also keeping in view of the fact that the transport licence is restricted to drive only motor cab and makes no difference in driving skills for driving the transport and 9 non-transport motor vehicle and as there is no other sufficient evidence to accept the contentions of the insurer that the driver of the crime vehicle lorry was possessing licence for one type of vehicle, but was found driving another type of vehicle and the same might have caused the accident, the insurer cannot be exonerated from its liability on the ground to technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 20.10.2022 Yvk