Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nishan Singh And Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 6 May, 2022
Author: Vikas Suri
Bench: Vikas Suri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
339 FAO-1404-2006
Date of decision: 06.05.2022
Nishan Singh and another ....Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Dilshad S. Gill, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1
None for respondent No. 2.
*****
VIKAS SURI, J.
Present appeal has been preferred by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 18.01.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur. At the commencement of final hearing, challenge to the award has been confined to the aspect that recovery rights should not have been granted to the Insurance Company (respondent No.1) against the appellants.
The facts, in brief, are that on the fateful day i.e. 10.10.2002, the deceased-Kansa Singh aged about 60 years, was taking his goods in a truck (TATA-407) driven and owned by appellant nos. 1 and 2, respectively. Due to rash driving, the truck went out of control and fell on its left side. The husband of the claimant was injured on account of the said accident and shifted to Civil Hospital, Mukerian, where he remained admitted and died on the following day i.e. on 11.10.2002. Thereafter, claim petition under 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 06:28:02 ::: FAO-1404-2006 (2) Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was preferred by the claimant-widow (respondent No.2 herein) and from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether Kansa Singh deceased died in motor vehicle accident which took place on 10.10.02 at about 4.30 PM in the area of Inderpura Gaon, Kangra due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.PB-07-D-5448 by Nishan Singh respondent No.1? OPA
2. Whether respondent No.1 was not in possession of valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3
3. To what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled and from whom? OPA The Tribunal decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. As such, a finding was returned that Kansa Singh (deceased) died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 10.10.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.PB-07-D-
5448 by Nishan Singh-appellant No.1, on the basis of ample oral and documentary evidence. It was also held that as the truck stood transferred in the name of appellant No.2, therefore, Jit Singh was the owner of the said truck. All objections raised by the insurance company under the said issue were appropriately dealt with and rejected by the Tribunal.
With regard to findings under issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the driver (Nishan Singh) was holding a valid licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). The said licence (Ex.R-3) was issued on 11.03.2002 and valid up to 10.03.2005. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was TATA-407, which is a transport vehicle and would fall within the definition of light motor vehicle i.e. a category for which the 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 06:28:03 ::: FAO-1404-2006 (3) licence was endorsed. The insurance company had raised an objection that TATA-407 was a commercial vehicle and to drive the same a light commercial vehicle licence was required. On the strength of the said objection, it was urged before the Tribunal that the driving licence was to be treated as invalid even though it had been issued to drive light motor vehicle, but the same was not for driving commercial vehicle.
The Tribunal rejected the aforesaid argument and returned a finding that the statutory liability of the insurance company cannot be shaken off only for the reason that at the relevant point of time, the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. However, as per the Tribunal, on account of the fact that the driver was granted licence for one type of vehicle but was driving another type of vehicle, the insurance company could not avoid liability and was to satisfy the decree at the first instance. The ratio of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others, AIR 2004 SC 1531, was applied and the Tribunal directed that the insurance company was to make payment to the claimant and it could recover the amount as required under the law.
The findings returned by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant have not been assailed by the insurance company or any other party, either by preferring a separate appeal or by way of cross objections in the present appeal. It has also not been disputed that TATA-407, a transport vehicle, is covered under the definition of light motor vehicle as per its weight specification.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 06:28:03 ::: FAO-1404-2006 (4) Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the only grievance surviving against the impugned award is with regard to recovery rights being granted to the insurance company. It is submitted that the said issue arising in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663. It is further submitted that finding a prima facie case in favour of the appellants, this Court while admitting the appeal had stayed recovery against the appellants during the pendency of the appeal vide order dated 11.09.2006. It is, thus, emphatically submitted that the moot question involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra and rests conclusively settled by the Apex Court, while considering conflicting decisions with regard to the definition of 'light motor vehicle' with reference to 'light goods vehicle' and 'light transport vehicle'. Reliance is thus placed upon the said judgment in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra), wherein the Apex Court was examining the contrary views taken in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 620 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, (2008) 1 SCC 696. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
45. Coming to conflicting decisions of this Court entailing reference in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha2, this Court has considered the definition of "light motor vehicle" and held thus: (SCC p. 626, para 10) "10. The definition of "light motor vehicle" as given in clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to a "light goods vehicle" or a "light transport vehicle". A "light motor vehicle" otherwise has to be covered by the definition of "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" as given in clause (28) of 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 06:28:03 ::: FAO-1404-2006 (5) Section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor vehicle can be a non-transport vehicle as well."
No doubt about it, that in addition thereto the Court while dealing with the matter comprehensively has gone in question as to the pleadings and the evidence adduced and it was observed that since there was neither a pleading nor a permit produced on record, the vehicle remained a light motor vehicle. If we proceed on the basis of the definition itself, we reach to the same conclusion that for driving transport vehicle of light motor vehicle category, no separate endorsement is required on a licence. Even when a light motor vehicle is used for carrying goods or for hire or rewards, it becomes a transport vehicle, though it remains included in the category of light motor vehicle as per Section 2(21) of the Act. The interpretation of the definition in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha2, makes it clear that light motor vehicle cannot always be a light goods carriage. It can be a non-transport vehicle as well. The definition of a light motor vehicle includes light goods vehicle and light transport vehicle also. The interpretation of the definition of "light motor vehicle" in aforesaid extracted para 10 is sound and we are in unison with the same. It was not necessary for the Court to go into the question of pleadings and evidence in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha2.
48. In our considered opinion Prabhu Lal5 question has not been decided correctly. The intendment and definition of the light motor vehicle which was clearly interpreted in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha2 in para 10 have not been taken into consideration in the correct perspective. Interpretation of Form 6 was also not correctly made. Even assuming that Ashok Gangadhar Maratha2 did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, but what emerges from the aforesaid discussion made by us it is clear that there is no necessity of such an endorsement for driving a transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle, which is not statutorily enjoined or provided for. The intendment of Section 3 has also not been correctly appreciated. It has to be read along with Sections 10(2)(d) and (e) and those classes of vehicles which are included in Categories 10(2)(a) to (j) can be driven by a person without any further specific endorsement to drive a particular vehicle. Thus, the decision in Prabhu Lal5 does not lay down correct proposition of law and is hereby overruled.
5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 06:28:03 ::: FAO-1404-2006 (6)
58. "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 maxi cab, 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 Amendment Act 54 of 1994.
59. 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 1989 Rules, 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 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 06:28:03 ::: FAO-1404-2006 (7) motor vehicle which earlier found place in Sections 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed."
In the aforesaid precedent, it has been categorically held that the 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 Sections 2(15) and 2(48) of the Act. It is further held that the said transport vehicle was not excluded from the definition of light motor vehicle by virtue of the amendment Act of 1994. As noticed above, the Apex Court conclusively held that when a driver is authorized to drive a vehicle, he can drive irrespective of the fact whether it is used for private purpose or for the purpose of higher reward of carrying comes in the said vehicle.
Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1- insurance company is not in a position to dispute the law laid down in the above noticed judgment in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra). On the contrary, it has been conceded that the said authoritative pronouncement holds the field till date and there is no other judicial pronouncement by the Apex Court subsequent thereto, either taking a different view or distinguishing the same.
In view of the above and following the afore-noticed binding precedent, I am of the considered view that appellant No.1 Nishan Singh (driver) held a valid driving licence to drive TATA-407 vehicle on the date of the accident, as a person holding a valid licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) would include authorization to drive 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 06:28:03 ::: FAO-1404-2006 (8) a transport vehicle, falling within the definition of light motor vehicle. Moreover, it would not make a difference whether the said transport vehicle was being used for carrying goods or passengers or whether it was used for private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward.
No other point was urged or argued.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the insurance company (respondent No.1) is not entitled to the recovery rights as such, as the liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle was upon the said respondent. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in this Court as per statutory requirement for preferring the instant appeal, against receipt No.72 dated 23.04.2005, be returned to the appellants if not already transmitted to the Tribunal. In case, the said amount has been remitted to the Tribunal, the appellants would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the concerned Tribunal for receiving the same.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(VIKAS SURI)
JUDGE
May 06, 2022
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 06:28:03 :::