Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Surinder Singh And Others on 18 August, 2011
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No. 5051 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 5051 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.8.2011
United India Insurance Company Limited Appellant
v
Surinder Singh and Others Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Ms. Vandana Malhotra,Advocate for the appellant
None for respondent No.1
Mr. Vivek Puri,Advocate for respondent No.2
Mr. Vinay Puri,Advocate for respondent No.3
....
JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J C.M.Nos. 24556 to 24558-CII of 2009 C.Ms are allowed. Delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned subject to all just exceptions.
Main appeal This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 6.5.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, whereby Insurance Company-appellant was jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation alongwith other respondents.
The claimant Surinder Singh filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988, ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs for the injuries suffered by him in an accident that occurred on 16.7.2007, with Mini Bus No. PB-12J-2189 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant/Respondent sustained fracture of right leg FAO No. 5051 of 2009 2 and other injuries on his body. He was removed to the BBMB Hospital, Nangal and later on referred to PGI, Chandigarh, but he preferred to get treatment from the Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. His right leg was operated upon and an expenditure of Rs. 60,000/- was incurred on his treatment. The Ld. Tribunal held the claimant to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 58,500/-, as compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. From the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount. It was further ordered that in case the respondents deposit the amount of compensation within a period of 45 days, the rate of interest would be 6% p.a. Respondents No. 1 to 3 were held liable jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant.
On the pleadings of the parties, one of the Issue (issue No.2) framed by the Learned Tribunal was:-
"Whether respondent No.1 driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident, if so, its effect? OPR"
In Para 13 of the judgment, the Learned Tribunal observed as under:-
"Surinder Singh received injuries in the accident because of the rash and negligent driving of Mini Bus No. PB-12J-2189 by respondent No.1 and the same is registered in the name of respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 as per Insurance Policy Ex.R-5. It is claimed by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that respondent No.1 was holding a driving licence for Light Motor Vehicle and the vehicle in question i.e. Mini Bus No. PB-12J-2189 does not fall under light FAO No. 5051 of 2009 3 motor vehicle. The definition of light motor vehicle has been given in S 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, which reads as under:-
'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'.
Ex.R.3 is the copy of registration certificate of Mini Bus in question and perusal of its complete copy reveals that its 'Unladen' weight is 1590 Kgs and,therefore, it will certainly fall under Light Motor Vehicle and respondent No.1 was holding a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. As such, the objection raised on behalf of counsel for respondent No.3 has no force and the same is repelled. Therefore, respondent No.1 to 3 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. With these observations, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents."
Learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned part of the Award only by contending that the learned Tribunal has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Act in so far as it requires that for driving a transport/passengers vehicle, an endorsement is required to be obtained under section 10 of the Act. It was further contended that the Learned Tribunal erroneously ignored the defence raised FAO No. 5051 of 2009 4 by the Insurance Company and made the appellant jointly and severally liable to pay the claim.
I find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company.
Indisputably, Naresh Kumar-respondent No.1, driver of the Mini Bus was holding a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. As per the Insurance Policy, Ex.P5, it was registered in the name of respondent No. 2 and was insured with the Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, referring to the provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having licence to drive light motor vehicle, he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. If a vehicle is 'light motor vehicle', but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. As observed above, the driver was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle but the licence was not endorsed as required and hence, he could not have driven Mini Bus in the absence of requisite endorsement and the Insurance Company could not be held liable. While dealing with a similar proposition, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Angad Kol and Ors. 2009(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 419, held as under:-
8. Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter called as 'the Act)was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. 'Driving Licence' has been defined in Section 2 (10) to mean the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II FAO No. 5051 of 2009 5 authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. 'Goods carriage' has been defined in section 2(14) to mean any 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. The said Act also defines 'heavy goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', 'medium goods vehicle', and 'medium passenger motor vehicle' as well as a 'light motor vehicle' in section 2 (21) of the Act to mean:
"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",
9. Although the definition of the 'light motor vehicle' brings within its umbrage both 'transport vehicle or omnibus', indisputably, as would be noticed infra, a distinction between an effective licence granted for transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists. Section 3 provides for the necessity of driving licence, stating:-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 FAO No. 5051 of 2009 6 authorizing 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 so to do."
Section 9 provides for grant of driving licence. Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licenses to drive which is to the following effect:-
"10. Form and contents of licences to drive--(1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(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) to (c) .... .... ....
(d) light motor vehicle;
(e) transport vehicle;
(i) road-roller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified description."
10. The distinction between a 'light motor vehicle' and a 'transport vehicle' is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is FAO No. 5051 of 2009 7 required to be obtained. The distinction between a 'transport vehicle' and a 'passenger vehicle' can also be noticed from section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 14 provides for duration of a period of 3 years in case of an effective licence to drive a 'transport vehicle' whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years."
In the instant case, as already observed above, the Mini bus falls in the category of transport vehicle as defined under section 2(47) of the Act. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained, which has not been obtained. The driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle, since the same was without the requisite endorsement, as required under sub section (2) to Section 75 of the Act. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.(supra), this court feels that the learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that the appellant-Insurance Company (with other respondents) jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation.
In view of the above discussions, the appeal is allowed granting liberty of recovery rights to the Appellant-insurance Company so as to recover the amount of compensation from respondents No. 1 & 2, being the driver and owner of the offending Mini Bus.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 18.8.2011 MS