Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar Bansal And Anr. vs Vinod Kumar Rai And Anr. on 17 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: II(2005)ACC611, 2006ACJ1424, 2005(1)MPHT68
Author: Shantanu Kemkar
Bench: Shantanu Kemkar
ORDER Shantanu Kemkar, J.
1. By filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the appellants driver and owner of the offending vehicle have challenged the award dated 9-1-2003 passed by VI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 27/02, by which the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.
2. Shortly stated that facts are : On 14-11-2001 the respondent No. I/claimant was travelling as a passenger in a Bajaj Tempo bearing Registration No. MPQ 3248, As per the respondent No. 1, the said vehicle was being driven by appellant No. 1 rashly and negligently. It dashed to a 'Chabutra'. Due to jerk the respondent No. 1 fell out of the tempo and sustained fracture of left shoulder. He filed an application under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the injuries to the tune of Rs. 95,000/-.
3. The appellants denied the rash and negligent driving of the appellant No. 1 and stated that in an attempt to save a scooterist, the vehicle dashed to a Chabutra. They further stated that the appellant No. 1 has got valid driving licence and the vehicle being insured with the respondent No. 2, the liability to pay compensation if any would be that of respondent No. 2.
4. In reply, the case of the insurer/respondent No. 2 was that on the date of accident the appellant No. 1 was possessing licence to drive light motor vehicle, but the offending vehicle which he was driving was a transport vehicle, as such there was breach of policy condition, therefore, the respondent No. 2 can not be made liable to pay the compensation.
5. The Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence exonerated the respondent No. 2 and awarded compensation of Rs. 27,000/- with interest @ 9% to the respondent No. 1 payable by the appellants. The Claims Tribunal held that the appellant No. 1 was having licence to drive light motor vehicle and was not possessing licence to drive transport vehicle and thus there was breach of policy condition.
6. Heard Shri Aseem Dixit, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Rakesh Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, Perused record.
7. Shri Aseem Dixit, learned Counsel for the appellants at the outset has submitted that the appellants are not challenging the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the compensation awarded being just, the award of the Tribunal needs no interference on this point. The contention on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company. It is contended that since the unladen weight of offending vehicle Bajaj Tempo was not exceeding 7500 kg. the same was covered under 'light motor vehicle' of which the appellant No. 1 was holding valid driving licence. Thus, the vehicle being driven by the duly licensed driver, there was no breach of policy condition.
8. In reply Shri Rakesh Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has not disputed that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was not exceeding 7500 kg. However, his submission is that Section 3 of the Act prohibits driving of a motor vehicle in a public place unless the person holds effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. He further submitted that the licence held by appellant No. 1 was not having any endorsement authorizing him to drive the transport vehicle, therefore, the breach is obvious and the Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondent No. 2.
9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter I would like to reproduce relevant provisions of the Act :-
"Section 2(21) defines light motor vehicle.
2. (21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms.
Section 2(47) defines transport vehicle.'
2. (47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.
Section 2(35) defines Public Service Vehicle.
2. (35) "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage."
Section 10 deals with form and contents of licences to drive. Sub- clause (2) of Section 10 reads as under :-
"(2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, 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."
10. A perusal of the definition of light motor vehicle makes it clear that even a transport vehicle of which unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle. The transport vehicle as defined under Section 2(47) includes public service vehicle. Public service vehicle as defined under Section 2(35) includes any motor vehicle used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward. A bare reading of the aforesaid definitions makes it clear that the offending vehicle which was used as public service vehicle was a transport vehicle and since its unladen weight was not exceeding 7500 kg. it comes under the definition of light motor vehicle, of which the appellant No. 1 was having valid driving licence.
11. In this view of the matter, question of having any endorsement on the licence authorizing to drive a transport vehicle would not arise in the present case. The vehicle would certainly cover under the definition of light motor vehicle which includes transport vehicle (public service vehicle) of unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg.
12. In the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2001 (1) ACJ 319] the Supreme Court held that if the driver is possessing a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, the licence would be a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle not exceeding the unladen weight prescribed under the definition of light motor vehicle. In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited. v. Goverdhan [2001(5) M.P.H.T. 327, 2001 (2) MPLJ 208] the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a case pertaining to goods vehicle has observed in Para 9 as under:-
"9. From the definition of 'transport vehicle' extracted, herein-above, it is apparent that the goods carriage is included in the transport vehicle and such transport vehicle if its unladen weight is below 7500 Kg., shall be a light motor vehicle as defined in Section 2 of sub-section (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Unladen weight of Matador in question undisputedly was less than 7500 kg. Thus, in spite of it being goods vehicle, it was a light motor vehicle and the driver was possessing the licence (Ex. D-1) for driving light motor-vehicle. Thus, the driver was having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle."
In yet another case United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Vimlabai and Ors.
nq?kZVuk eqvkotk izdkf'kd2001 (1)278, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the public service vehicle carrying passengers is a transport vehicle and the unladen weight of tempo being less than 7500 kg. it would be a light motor vehicle.
13. In my view the point involved in the present case is covered by the aforesaid two Division Bench judgments of this Court and also by the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra), the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Suraj Parkash [2001(1) ACJ 85] relied by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 is of no help to the respondent No. 2.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed. The impugned award exonerating respondent No. 2/Insurance Company is set aside. The award is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal shall be payable by the respondent No. 2/The New India Assurance Company Limited. No order as to costs.