Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sushil Son Of Sh. Shyam Lal Resident Of ... vs Smt. Sunder Devi Widow Of Sh. Satbir And ... on 16 August, 2010
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.745 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.745 of 2010
Date of Decision. 16.08.2010
Sushil son of Sh. Shyam Lal resident of ward No.19, Chirawa, Tehsil
Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) and another
......Appellants
Versus
Smt. Sunder Devi widow of Sh. Satbir and others
......Respondents
Present: Dr. Pawan Hans, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the insurance company.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
-.-
K. KANNAN J.
1. The appeal is at the instance of the driver and owner of the vehicle involved in the accident against the award passed by the Tribunal making them liable jointly and severally on a finding of negligent driving by the insured's driver of a Mahindra Pick Up/D Van without a valid driving licence. The vehicle was admittedly a transport vehicle which did not carry a special endorsement as required under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was brought out in evidence that at the time of accident, the driver was holding a driving licence alleged to have been issued at Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) issued on 13.01.2006 and was valid upto 12.01.2026 for the light motor vehicle only. Another copy of licence was produced FAO No.745 of 2010 -2- and marked as R-2 in the name of Sushil Kumar alleged to have been issued by the Government of Nagaland. This licence issued by the Government of Nagaland was for motor cycle, LMV, MMV, HCV only. The Tribunal referred to Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act and found that there could not have been two licences and it was also doubtful why the driver had obtained a new driving licence just two months prior to the accident. It further found that the original of R-2 itself had not been filed and rejected the plea on behalf of the driver that he had lost it. The Tribunal found that the driver did not have a transport vehicle licence and therefore, was not duly licenced. Consequently, the Tribunal made the owner of the vehicle jointly liable of the insurance company.
2. In support of the contention that a light motor vehicle would enable a driver to drive even a transport vehicle, the learned counsel refers to a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shankarlal and another 2006 ACJ 2645 and yet another decision in Vinod Kumar Bansal and another Vs. Vinod Kumar Rai and another 2006 ACJ 1424. Both the decisions referred to the unladen weight of a tempo that did not exceed to 7500 kgs and therefore, it was a light motor vehicle and mere licence to drive a light motor vehicle was, therefore, sufficient. The same view was also found expressed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tsering Dolma and others 2006 ACJ 2816 that Swaraj Mazda weighing 5920 kg is a light motor vehicle and held that it was nowhere prescribed that the licence for driving a light motor vehicle should bear an endorsement to drive a FAO No.745 of 2010 -3- public service vehicle.
3. In my respectful view, the judgments do not cite the correct position of law. It is wrong to assume that there is nowhere in the Act that requires a motor vehicle to bear an endorsement to drive a public service vehicle. On the contrary, it is specifically provided so under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 3 reads as follows:-
"3. Necessity for driving licence. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab 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 so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub- section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government."
4. The requirement of having a transport vehicle endorsement was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Angad Kol and others (2009) 11 SCC 356 that such an endorsement is necessary. The same point has also been found expressed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal 2008 ACJ 627 that dealt specifically with the case of a vehicle whose unladen weight was less than 7500 kg. It was a light motor vehicle alright but since it was a goods carriage and used as such, it FAO No.745 of 2010 -4- required a transport vehicle endorsement. In view of the decisions in Angad Kol's case and Prabhu Lal's case (supra), the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Jammu and Kashmir High Court are not any longer good law. The same point had been dealt with also in still earlier judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai where the driver had a licence to drive a light motor vehicle which was being plied as a taxi namely for a commercial purpose. The want of endorsement was found to entitle the insurer to deny a right of indemnity to the insured.
5. The appeal is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 16, 2010 Pankaj*