Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kankar Kanwar And Ors vs Chail Singh And Ors on 26 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 RAJ 641
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2038/2017
1. Kankar Kanwar W/o Late Indra Singh,
2. Miss Surbhi Kanwar D/o Late Indra Singh,
3. Narendra Singh S/o Late Indra Singh,
4. Pradeep Singh S/o Late Indra Singh,
All By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Meethadi, Tehsil Ahore,
District Jalore, Rajasthan, Appellant No. 2 To 4 Being
Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Chail Singh S/o Shri Mohabbat Singh, By Caste Rajput
Solanki, Resident Of Meethadi, Tehsil Ahore, District
Jalore ..........driver.
2. Pola Ram S/o Deepa Ram, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of
Gudha- Rama, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore. ........ Owner
3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company, E-8, Epip, Riico
Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur. ......insurance Company
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Rajesh Parihar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jagdish Vyas.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 26/07/2019
1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that there are two issues involved in the appeal ; one issue pertains to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2017(2) ACTC (SC) 692 and second one regarding wages.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:17:53 AM)
(2 of 6) [CMA-2038/2017]
2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly agree that the vehicle in question was jeep and the driver was holding the license of light motor vehicle. Thus, the issue in question has been answered by the judgment rendered by 3 Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2017(2) ACTC (SC)
692. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows :-
"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 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 (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:17:53 AM) (3 of 6) [CMA-2038/2017] 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 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 undersection 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 in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g)and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section 10(2) (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:17:53 AM) (4 of 6) [CMA-2038/2017]
(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."
After perusing the record of the case, it is found that the driver of the alleged vehicle i.e. jeep was having a license to drive a light motor vehicle and not for jeep. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above precedent law has held that a person having light motor vehicle license is also competent to drive a transport vehicle including jeep, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. However, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the judgment of Mukund Dewangan (supra) has been referred to larger Bench in Civil Appeal No.841/2018 (M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi & Ors.). Since the precedent law of Mukund Dewangan (supra) is holding the field, therefore, this proposition is answered in favour of the appellant that the liability shall be upon the insurer.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company had disputed the wages on the count that Rs.4,000/- has been taken by the learned Tribunal as monthly income whereas it should have been minimum wages prescribed by law. (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:17:53 AM)
(5 of 6) [CMA-2038/2017]
4. This argument of learned counsel for the respondent does not merit acceptance because the insurance company has not preferred an appeal against the award and the wages determined by the learned Tribunal is reasonable.
5. In light of the aforesaid precedent law, the present appeal is allowed and it is made clear that liability under the award shall be upon the Insurance Company. With the consent and agreement of the parties. applying the Revised Guidelines for Settlement in MACT Cases issued by Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, fresh determination of compensation is as follows :-
Deceased :- Indra Singh
Age :- 37 years.
Dependents :- Wife & 3 minor children
Income as considered by lower Court :- 4,000/- p.m.
Add future prospects 40% 1,600/-
Total monthly income 5,600/-
Multiplier applied (15) 5600 x 12 x 15 10,08,000/-
Less Deduction 1/4th 2,52,000/-
Net Income 7,56,000/-
Add Non-pecuniary Damages 70,000/-
Add Medical Expenses 30,000/-
Total :- 8,56,000/-
Less Awarded by Tribunal 5,77,000/-
Enhanced amount 2,79,000/-
6. The respondents shall now pay Rs.2,79,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. within a period of two months from today to the claimants, failing which the due amount shall carry (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:17:53 AM) (6 of 6) [CMA-2038/2017] interest @ 9% per annum for the subsequent period (i.e. after two months from today) till actual payment is made.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 34-SPhophaliya/-
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:17:53 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)