Punjab-Haryana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Mahender Singh And Others on 26 October, 2009
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
F.A.O.No.5114 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.No.5114 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision 26.10.2009
The New India Assurance Company Limited
...... Appellant
VERSUS
Mahender Singh and others
...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate,
for the appellant.
*****
A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):
This appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company (herein referred as 'the appellant') is directed against the award dated 04.08.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar, (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.5,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of respondent No.1-claimant (herein referred as 'the claimant') and against the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 jointly and severally on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident.
The sole question to be determined in this appeal is whether the person holding a driving licence for driving the motorcycle jeep and scooter, while driving tractor could be said to be violating the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.
The brief resume of facts as culled out from the judgment essentially for disposal of the appeal, are that Mohinder Singh claimant suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 02.04.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing registration No.HR- 13C-4265, by respondent No.2 and owned by respondent No.3. The said claim petition was contested.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether present accident is the outcome of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-13C/4265 by respondentNo.1-Anil Kumar in which petitioner suffered injuries ? OP F.A.O.No.5114 of 2009 2
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount and from whom the petitioner is entitled to recover ? OPP
3. Whether respondent No.2 willfully violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of alleged accident ? OPR-3
4. Relief.
Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately, the claim petition was accepted and a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum was awarded in favour of claimant.
The prime argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that since respondent No.2 was not holding a valid driving licence for driving the tractor and he could drive only motorcycle, scooter, jeep and car, therefore, the driving of the tractor was in violation of terms and conditions of the policy, as such, the appellant-insurance company was not liable.
Heard. The driving licence Ex.R1, placed on record, undoubtedly was valid at the time of accident. It was issued for driving motorcycle, scooter, jeep and car. No force could be found in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that if the driver was not having a licence for a requisite type of vehicle, then he could be said to have violated the terms and conditions of the policy. To the contrary, it has been contended that mechanism of the car, jeep and the tractor is the same. If a person has been held competent to drive car and jeep could also drive the tractor, therefore, the appellant-insurance company could not be exonerated on this point.
Sub Section 10 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 describes the definition of expression 'driving licence' as:
"(10) 'driving licence' means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description."
In order to further appreciate the controversy I need to reproduce the definition of driver as envisaged under sub Section 9 of Section 2 which is reproduced as under:-
" 'driver' includes, in relation to a motor vehicle which is F.A.O.No.5114 of 2009 3 drawn by another motor vehicle, the person who acts as a steersman of the drawn vehicle."
On conjoint reading of the aforesaid two definitions, it could be noticed that the driver would include a steersman of the vehicle but the driving licence is to mean as obtained by him and issued by competent authority under Chapter II authorising the persons specified therein other than a learner to drive a motor vehicle of any specified class. Chapter II of the Act refers to licencing to drivers of motor vehicles. Under Section 3 of the said Act, it is mandatory that before a motor vehicle can be driven, the driver must have a driving licence. The driving licence has to be with respect to the particular type of vehicle that has to be driven. It is clear from the expression, occurring under Section 3 which states 'authorising him to drive the vehicle'. Section 3 in this regard reads as under:-
"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 or motor cycle 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 to do so. (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.
The conclusion as could be drawn from the reading of the aforesaid provisions is that the licence has to be with respect to drive a specified vehicle of any specified class or description.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid provisions entitling the authorities to provide a licence for a specified vehicle but it is often seen that the drivers are either authorized to drive different types of vehicles are also issue licences authorizing the drivers to drive light motor vehicles, medium motor vehicles or heavy motor vehicles. The licences are divided into three categories i.e. one light motor vehicle, second heavy motor vehicle and third medium Motor vehicle. The light motor vehicle was defined as transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either F.A.O.No.5114 of 2009 4 of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. Thus, the light motor vehicle included both motorcycle, car or a tractor . As such, it includes light transport vehicle also. In nutshell it can be concluded that if driving method and mechanism of the vehicle which he was driving is the same as that of which he was holding a valid driving licence then the validity of such licence for the former vehicle cannot be challenged. Similar question came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this High Court in case National Insurance Company Limited vs. Parveen Kumar 2005ACJ 1178 (P&H) wherein their lordships while dealing with the similar controversy had observed as under:-
"We may, however, hasten to add that the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation by simply pleading that the licence granted to the driver being for one class or description of vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was of different class or description, unless it is proved that the cause of the accident was the licence granted to the driver being for one class or description of vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was of different class or description. The observations made by the Supreme Court presuppose that if the driver was driving a vehicle, of which he might not be holding licence as such, but was holding a driving licence of a different description of vehicle and the driving method of both the vehicles, for which licence was obtained and the one which was being driven, was the same and when even the mechanism of the vehicle is also same, the defence projected by insurance company with regard to the driver not possessing requisite type of licence could be of no avail to it."
In the aforesaid Full Bench judgment, this court has also followed the ratio of a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others AIR 2004 SC 1531, wherein the Supreme Court while considering various objections raised by the company in support of violations qua driving licences, F.A.O.No.5114 of 2009 5 observed as under:
"That the cases may also arise where holder of driving licence for 'light motor vehicle' is found to be driving a 'maxicab' 'motorcab' or 'omnibus' for whichhe has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the Claims Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence."
In the instant case also Anil Kumar, driver of the tractor bearing registration No.HR-13C-4265 was holding a valid driving licence of car, jeep and motorcycle and thus possibly he could drive the tractor. The accident did not take place for the reasons only that he was not possessing the requisite type of licence and there was no nexus of the driver not possessing requisite driving licence with the alleged accident. The Full Bench observed that even if the driver holding a licence for car, jeep and motorcycle could drive the matador as the accident did not take place for the reasons that the mechanism of the matador and the car and jeep was different and it had some nexus with the alleged accident. Similar view were taken by this Court in case Satpal and another versus Ram Phal and others 2006 ACJ 2742. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, I have no hesitation to hold that respondent No.1 had a valid and effective driving licence. Findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.3 stand affirmed.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge 26.10.2009 mamta-II