Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kamal Dev vs Tulsi Ram And Others on 12 September, 2017
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No. 153 of 2014
Decided on: 12.09.2017
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamal Dev ......Appellant
Versus
Tulsi Ram and Others .....Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the appellant Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Basant Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against award dated 25.2.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'MACT'), Ghumarwin, in MAC No. 23- 2 of 2010, whereby learned tribunal below, while allowing claim petition preferred by respondent No. 1/claimant (hereinafter referred to as 'claimant') held him entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,44,858/- alongwith interest at the rate of Rs. 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 2depositing of amount. While awarding aforesaid compensation, learned tribunal held the appellant and present respondent No. .
2 (owner of the vehicle) liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation jointly and severally.
2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that complainant preferred petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before learned MACT, Ghumarwin, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Camp at Bilaspur), seeking therein compensation to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs for the injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-23-B-2370, which took place on 28.02.2016 at Ghumani, Chowk, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. Since, factum with regard to accident as well as injuries sustained by claimant is not in dispute, this Court finds it not necessary to give details of the same. Similarly, perusal of impugned award passed by learned MACT below suggests that the claimant successfully proved on record the factum with regard to accident as well as injuries suffered by him in the accident. This Court after having carefully perused the evidence led on record by claimant sees no reason to differ with the findings returned by the learned MACT below qua the amount of compensation. Otherwise also, perusal of impugned award suggests that learned MACT below while determining ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 3 compensation has dealt with each and every aspect of matter meticulously and there is no scope left for this Court to re-
.
determine the compensation, which has not otherwise been challenged by either of the parties.
3. By way of instant appeal, appellant who happened to be driver of the offending vehicle has laid challenge to the impugned award on the ground that findings returned by learned MACT below qua the validity of driving licence possessed by him at the relevant time are contrary to basic provisions as contained in Motor Vehicles Act. Perusal of impugned award suggests that learned Court below taking note of reply filed by respondent Insurance Company, wherein it had specifically stated that it had not issued policy of insurance insuring or contracting to indemnify respondent No. 1 and the vehicle was being driven by unauthorized person, who was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, proceeded to hold that appellant was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and as such, insurance company was not held liable to pay compensation. At this stage, it may be noticed that learned Tribunal below while returning aforesaid finding also took into consideration statement made by Ranbir Singh (RW-1) i.e. Registration Clerk, who deposed before the Court below that licence No. BDL ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 4 161/2006 dated 6.7.2006 was issued in the name of Mr. Kamal Dev, present appellant, for driving light motor vehicle Auto .
Rickshaw Non Transport. Aforesaid witness also produced on record copy of extract of driving licence Ex. RW1/A to demonstrate that licence was issued to respondent No. 2 for driving light motor vehicle three wheeler non-transport w.e.f.
6.7.2006.
4. Sh. B.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel, representing appellant, while referring to the impugned award passed by learned MACT, vehemently contended that findings returned by learned MACT with regard to validity of driving licence possessed by respondent No. 2 at the time of accident is not sustainable in eyes of law as the same is contrary to basic provisions as contained in the Motor Vehicle Act as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time. Sh.
B.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel contended that it is an admitted fact that licence Ext. RW1/A was issued by the competent authority to drive light motor vehicle, whereas learned MACT below wrongly arrived at conclusion that driving licence was not valid as it was only issued to drive light motor vehicle three wheeler non transport. While referring to the statement of RW-1, Ranbir Singh, Registration Clerk, Mr. B.S. Chauhan learned Senior Counsel further contended that it has ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 5 specifically come in his cross-examination that driver was competent to drive car or three-wheeler, meaning thereby .
appellant at the relevant time was having valid licence to drive the offending vehicle and as such finding recorded by the Court below deserves to be quashed and set aside being contrary to provisions of law as contained in Motor Vehicle Act as well as specific statement made by Registration Clerk before the Court below. Sh. B.S. Chauhan learned Sr. Counsel with a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, invited attention of this Court to Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein "Light Motor Vehicle" has been defined. Mr. Chauhan, while referring to the definition as provided under Clause (21) of Section 2 of Motor Vehicles Act, forcefully contended that no different category of Auto Rickshaw non-transport, as has been mentioned/endorsed in the driving licence of petitioner, is prescribed under the definition of "light motor vehicle". Learned senior counsel further submitted that all transport vehicles or omnibus having gross weight not exceeding 7500 kilograms have been defined as "light motor vehicle" and there is no specific category of "Auto Rickshaw non transport" defined under the Act and as such, mentioning of the same in the licence of appellant is superfluous and could not be taken into consideration by the Court below while determining the validity ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 6 of licence possessed by the appellant at the time of accident.
Learned senior counsel further argued that learned Tribunal .
below erred in holding appellant liable to pay compensation jointly and severally with respondent No. 2, especially, when insurance policy was in the name of respondent No.2. Mr. B.S. Chauhan, learned senior counsel also invited attention of this Court to judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011 titled Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited to demonstrate that transport vehicle or omnibus, gross weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 Kgs would be considered as "light motor vehicle"
and also motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of licence should have a valid licence to drive the aforesaid vehicles as provided under Motor Vehicles Act. While referring to aforesaid judgment, learned senior counsel contended that there is no requirement of separate endorsement on the licence of driver to drive "transport vehicle" or "light motor vehicle" and licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) of the Act ibid, continues to be valid after the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 ( Act No. 54 of 1994) dated 28.3.2009. Learned senior counsel while drawing strength from the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court further contended that Section 10 of Act, ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 7 requires a driver to hold a driving licence with respect to a type of vehicle and not with respect to a class of vehicle and, as .
such, finding returned by learned Tribunal below that the appellant was not having a valid driving licence to drive offending vehicle (Alto Car) at the time of accident, is totally contrary to the provisions of law as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned counsel representing respondent no. 1(claimant) fairly admitted before this Court that no challenge has been laid to the impugned award by the claimant as far as amount of compensation is concerned. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned counsel further stated that claimant is entitled to compensation as awarded by the Court below, which may be either paid by insurance company or appellant.
6. Mr. Lalit K Sharma, learned counsel representing insurance company supported the impugned award and stated that there is no illegality or infirmity in the award and as such, same deserves to be upheld. While referring to Section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act, learned counsel representing respondent Insurance company contended that licensing authority has rightly made specific endorsement in the driving licence of appellant, whereby he was only authorized to drive "light motor vehicle Auto Rickshaw-non transport". Mr. Lalit K Sharma, ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 8 further contended that as per Section 3, no person can drive a motor vehicle at any public place unless he holds an effective .
driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle. While inviting attention of this Court to Ex. RW1/A, Sh.
Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel contended that bare perusal of the same suggests that appellant-respondent No. 2 was entitled to drive "light motor vehicle-Auto Rickshaw-non transport" and as such, there is no illegality and infirmity in the findings of learned tribunal below, especially when it is not in dispute that at the time of accident, appellant-respondent No. 2 was driving Alto car. However, it may be noticed that Mr. Sharma, fairly conceded that at the time of accident, insurance policy issued in favour of respondent No. 2, who happened to be the owner of the vehicle, was in vogue and there is no dispute qua the same. While refuting the submissions of learned Senior Counsel representing appellant that impugned award is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Mr. Lalit K Sharma, learned counsel contended that impugned award is strictly in accordance with law prevalent at the relevant time and subsequent Rule/law, if any, passed by Hon'ble Apex Court has no application qua the impugned Award. However, fact remains that Sh. Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel representing ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 9 insurance company was unable to dispute the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Mukund Dewangan Vs. .
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, wherein, it has been specifically held that Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold driving licence with respect to 'class' of vehicle and not with respect to the 'type' of vehicle.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the records.
8. The only controversy, which is required to be decided by this Court in the instant proceedings is, "whether the findings returned by the Court below that respondent No. 2 was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident is correct in law or not?" As has been taken note above, there is no dispute, if any, with respect to issuance of driving licence in favour of respondent No. 2, rather, dispute if any, is whether respondent No. 2, was entitled to drive only "light motor vehicle
-Auto Rickshaw non transport" or any of "light motor vehicle" as defined under Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act. Though, Sh.
Lalit K Sharma, Advocate, representing Insurance Company, while supporting the impugned Award passed by Court below, contended that at the time of passing of Award, there was no law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court to the effect that Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold driving licence with ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 10 respect to "class of vehicle" and not with respect to the "type of vehicle", but, aforesaid submission having been made by Sh.
.
Lalit K Sharma, does not appear to be correct in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled S. IYYAPAN Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another (2013) 7 SCC 62, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company (2013) 10 SCC 217 and Kulwant Singh and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 186. In the aforesaid judgments it has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires a driver to hold licence with respect to "class" of vehicle not with respect to the "type" of vehicle and as such, findings returned by learned MACT below qua validity of driving licence held/possessed by respondent No. 2 are totally contrary to the law prevalent at the time of passing of the impugned award. Hon'ble Apex Court recently in judgment dated 3.7.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011 titled Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited has again reiterated that as per Section 10 of Act driver needs to hold licence with respect to "class" of vehicle and not with respect to "type" of vehicle. Hon'ble Apex Court, while interpreting Section 10 of the Act ibid, further held that in one class of vehicle, there may be different types of vehicles, but if ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 11 they fall in the same class of vehicle, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. In the aforesaid judgment, .
Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that a holder of light motor vehicle licence, can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. Hon'ble Apex Court, while returning aforesaid finding specifically concluded that any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle' in Section 2 (21) of the Act and the provision of Section 10(2) (d) of the Act ibid and Rule 8 of the Rules, 1989.
9. Since in the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically dealt with each and every aspect of the matter relating to the definition of "light motor vehicle" as defined under Section 2(21) of the Act, as well as competence of a driver holding licence for driving "light motor vehicle" to drive a transport vehicle or an omnibus, gross weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg, or, a motor car or a tractor or a road roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg, it would be profitable to take note of following observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred hereinabove:
"5. Section 10 deals with the Form and contents of the licences to drive. Section 10 as it stood before its amendment made in the year 1994 by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994 is extracted hereunder:
"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 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 12 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) motorcycle without gear;
(b) motorcycle with gear;
(c) invalid carriage;
(d) light motor vehicle;
(e) medium goods vehicle;
(f) medium passenger motor vehicle;
(g) heavy goods vehicle;
(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle;
(i) roadroller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified
description.""
It is apparent from the pre-amended provision which existed before the amendment made in the year 1994 that class or description of the vehicle for which licence used to be issued were categorized inter alia as light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle and motor vehicle of a specified description. Transport vehicle was not a separate class, and it could be under section 10(1) (d) to (h).
6. The amendment had been made in section 10 by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act being relevant is extracted hereunder:
"Amendment Act 54 of 1994 - Statement of Objects and Reasons.-The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) consolidated and rationalised various laws regulating road transport. The Act came into force with effect from 1st July 1989 replacing the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. After the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Government received a number of representations and suggestions from the state govt. transport operators and members of public regarding the inconvenience faced by them because of the operation of some of the provisions of the 1988 Act. A Review Committee was, therefore, constituted by the Government in March 1990 to examine and review the 1988 Act.
3. The recommendations of the Review Committee were forwarded to the State Governments for comments and they ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 13 generally agree with these recommendations.
The Government also considered a large
number of representations received, after
finalisation of the Report of the Review Committee, from the transport operators .
and public for making amendments in the Act.
The draft of the proposals based on the recommendation of the Review Committee and representations from the public were placed before the Transport Development Council for seeking their views in the matter. The important suggestions made by the Transport Development Council relate to, or are on account of,-
(a) The introduction of newer type of
vehicles and fast increasing number
of both commercial and personal
vehicles in the country.
(b) Providing adequate compensation to
victims of road accidents without
going into long drawn procedure;
(c) Protecting consumers' interest in
Transport Sector;
r (d) Concern for road safety standards,
transport of hazardous chemicals and
pollution control;
(e) Delegation of greater powers to
State Transport Authorities and
rationalising the role of public
authorities in certain matters;
(f) The simplification of procedures and
policy liberalisation in the field of Road Transport;
(g) Enhancing penalties for traffic
offenders.
4. Therefore, the proposed legislation has been prepared in the light of the above background. The Bill inter alia provides for-
(a) modification and amplification of certain definitions of new type of vehicles;
(b) simplification of procedure for grant of driving licences;
(c) putting restrictions on the alteration of vehicles;
(d) certain exemptions for vehicles running on non-polluting fuels;
(e) ceilings on individuals or Co. holdings removed to curb "benami" holdings;::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 14
(f) States authorised to appoint one or
more State Transport Appellate
Tribunals;
(g) punitive checks on the use of such
components that do not conform to the
.
prescribed standards by manufactures, and also stocking/sale by the traders;
(h) increase in the amount of compensation of the victims of hit and run cases;
(i) removal of time limit for filling of application by road accident victims for compensation;
(j) punishment in case of certain offences is made stringent;
(k) a new pre-determined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income, which is more liberal and rational.
5. The Law Commission in its 119th Report had recommended that every application for a claim be made to the Claims Tribunal r having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Defendant resides, at the option of the claimant. The bill also makes necessary provision to give effect to the said recommendation."
7. The pre-amended provision of Section 10 contained the vehicles of ten kinds in Section 10(2) (a) to (j). In order to simplify the procedure for obtaining the licence, categories like medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, and heavy passenger motor vehicle were deleted and one category was inserted for these four kinds of vehicles in the form of "transport vehicle"
in section 10(2)(e) so that drivers are not required to obtain the licence again and again for aforesaid four kinds of vehicles. The provision of section 10 after amendment made by Act 54 of 1994 is extracted hereunder:
"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 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 15 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) motorcycle without gear;
(b) motorcycle with gear;
(c) invalid carriage;
(d) light motor vehicle;
(e) transport vehicle;
(f) -(h)
(i) road-roller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified
description."
8. Before dilating further, it is necessary to consider other definitions as 'gross vehicle weight' has co-relation with the classification of vehicles into a light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, and heavy passenger motor vehicle. The definitions of aforesaid class of vehicles are extracted hereunder:
"2. Definitions.
(16) "heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;
(17) "heavy passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of which, or a motor car the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;
(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;
23) "medium goods vehicle" means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle;
(24) "medium passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle, or educational institution bus other than a motor cycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle;"::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 16
9. The definition of 'gross vehicle weight' and 'unladen weight' are also significant as the expression finds a place in the aforesaid definitions. Said definitions in sections 2(15) and .
2(48) are as under:
"2(15) "gross vehicle weight" means in respect of any vehicle the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered by the registering authority as permissible for that vehicle;
"2 (48) "unladen weight" means the weight of a vehicle or trailer including all equipments ordinarily used with the vehicle or trailer when working, but excluding the weight of a driver or attendant; and where alternative parts or bodies are used the unladen weight of the vehicle means the weight of the vehicle with the heaviest such alternative part or body;
10. 'Transport vehicle' has been referred in section 2(47) of the Act thus:
"2 (47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;"
Various expressions find a place in the aforesaid definition of 'transport vehicle'. Each of them has been defined separately and they are extracted thus:
"2 (11) "educational institution bus" means an omnibus, which is owned by a college, school or other educational institution and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the educational institution in connection with any of its activities;
2 (14) "goods carriage" means 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; 2 (33) "private service vehicle" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes;
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 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 17 maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage;"
11. 'Motor car', 'omnibus' and 'tractor' have been defined in the .
Act thus:
"2(26) "motor car" means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor cycle or invalid carriage;
2(29) "omnibus" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver;
2(44) "tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to; carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion), but excludes a road-roller;"
12. Section 9 of the Act deals with grant of driving licence. Any person can apply for driving licence unless he is disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence. The application has to be filed in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government as provided in section 9(2). The applicant has to pass a test also, as provided in section 9(3) It is further provided in section 9(4) that a person applying for the licence to drive a transport vehicle shall possess such minimum educational qualification as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Licensing authority may refuse to issue a licence to a habitual criminal or a habitual drunkard or who is habitually addicted to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or whose licence had been revoked earlier.
13. Prior to amendment in 1994 licence for transport vehicle was clearly covered as per section 10(2) in five categories, i.e., Section 10(2)(d) light motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(e) medium goods vehicle, Section 10(2) (f) medium passenger motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(g) heavy goods vehicle and Section 10(2)(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle. The licence for 'light motor vehicle' has been provided in section 10(2)(d). The expression 'transport vehicle' has been inserted by virtue of Amendment Act 54/1994 in section 10(2)(e) after deleting four categories or classes of ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 18 vehicles, i.e. medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, and heavy passenger motor vehicle. Earlier Section 10 did not contain the separate .
class of transport vehicles.
14. The definition of 'light motor vehicle' makes it clear that for 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 kgs. 'Gross vehicle weight' has been defined in section 2(15). The motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as defined in section 2(48) of the Act, are also the light motor vehicle. No change has been made by Amendment Act of 54/94 in the provisions contained in sections 2(21) and 10(2)(d) relating to the light motor vehicle. The definition of 'light motor vehicle' has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with section 10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly clear that 'light motor vehicle' is also a 'transport vehicle', the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as specified in the provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as specified in section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of section 3 of the Act requires that a person in order to drive a 'transport vehicle' must have authorization.
Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor, the unladen weight of which, as the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg. The insertion of 'transport vehicle' category in section 10(2)(e) has no effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of the class of light motor vehicle. A distinction is made in the Act of heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on the basis of 'gross vehicle weight' or 'unladen weight' for heavy passenger ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 19 motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, the weight, as the case may be, exceed 12000 kg. Medium goods vehicle shall mean any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy .
goods vehicle; whereas 'medium passenger motor vehicle' means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a motorcycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle.
Thus, the newly incorporated expression 'transport vehicle' in section 10(2)(e) would include only the vehicles of the category as defined in section 2(16) - heavy goods vehicle, section 2(17) - heavy passenger motor vehicle, section 2(23) -
medium goods vehicle and section 2(24) medium passenger motor vehicle, and would not include the 'light motor vehicle' which means transport vehicle also of the weight specified in Section 2(21).
xxxxxx
36. In our considered opinion Prabhu Lal's (supra) question has not decided correctly. The intendment and definition of the light motor vehicle which was clearly interpreted in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha (supra) 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 Maratha (supra) 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 Section 10(2)(d) and (e) and those classes of vehicles which are included in a category 10(2) (a) to (j) can be driven by a person without any further specific endorsement to drive a particular vehicle. Thus, the ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 20 decision in Prabhu Lal (supra) does not lay down correct proposition of law and is hereby overruled.
37. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Roshanben .
Rahemansha Fakir & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 253 the driver was the holder of a licence to drive a three-wheeler. This Court noted that the licence was not meant to be used to drive a transport vehicle. The vehicle involved was an autorickshaw delivery van and was a goods carrier. It was contended that the driver was not the holder of a legal and valid licence. This Court came to the conclusion that since the licence was issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance or renewal, the driver was not holding the licence to drive a transport vehicle as transport licence is not issued for such duration. The decision in the aforesaid case also cannot hold the field in the light of the law discussed in the instant matters and as the driver driving such a vehicle i.e. three-wheeler was holding the licence to drive a light motor vehicle, the restricted duration of renewal would not be applicable to the light transport vehicle. The discussion to the contrary in Roshan Lal (supra) cannot hold the field.
38. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has considered the question with respect to an accident which took place on 9.12.1999. The driver was driving a Matador van, a "goods carriage" vehicle, holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle. This Court referred to Forms 4 and 6 and Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules of 1989 and opined that as Form 4 has been amended w.e.f. 28.3.2001, transport vehicle has been substituted for medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle and provision in the form at the relevant time, covered both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". The driver who had a valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle (transport vehicle) as well. The view taken with respect to the pre-amended position, before the amendment of Form 4 on 28.3.2001 appears to be correct for ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 21 the reasons discussed by us. However, no change has been brought about by insertion of Form 4 after 28.3.2001 with respect to LMV category .
transport vehicle, thus, Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) cannot be taken to be laying down correct legal position applicable after 28.3.2001. With respect to the post- amendment legal position, the decision cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. However, this Court has rightly opined in the aforesaid case that the person holding a licence to drive "light motor vehicle" could have driven "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle"
also. Thus, the decision is partially overruled to the aforesaid extent only.
39. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 356, this Court has considered the decisions in Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) and Prabhu Lal (supra). The accident took place on 31.10.2004. A mini dor auto dashed against the insured. The question arose whether the driver was not having an effective driving licence to drive "goods carriage vehicle" since he was holding the licence to drive the motorcycle and light motor vehicle. It was granted for a period of 20 years and as such this Court presumed that it was meant for the purpose of driving a vehicle other than a transport vehicle. This Court has observed thus:
"21. Licence having been granted for a period of 20 years, a presumption, therefore, arises that it was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle. Had the driving licence been granted for a transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not exceeded to three years."
This Court observed that for grant of licence to drive a transport vehicle, provision in Section 10(2)(e) became effective from 28.3.2001, that is, the date on which form was amended and held that the vehicle was a "goods vehicle" as such the driver did not hold a valid driving licence for a "goods vehicle". The legal position cannot be said to have been correctly appreciated in Angad Kol's case (supra), for the reasons discussed by us, as the vehicle was of light motor ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:24 :::HCHP 22 vehicle class. Thus, the decision is required to be overruled as the vehicle which was driven was the light motor vehicle, though, it was goods carriage vehicle i.e. .
transport vehicle.
40. In S. Iyyapan (supra), this Court has considered the decisions in Ashok Gangadhar (supra), Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) as well as Prabhu Lal (supra) and has laid down thus:
"18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab.
Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed the grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the r driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment (Civil Misc. Appeal No.1016 of 2002, order dated 31.10.2008 (Mad)) is, therefore, liable to be set aside."
This Court has rightly held in S. Iyyapan (supra) that it was not necessary for the driver to get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab as he was authorized to drive a light motor vehicle.
41. In Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 186, this Court has referred to the decisions in S. Iyyapan (supra) and Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) and has laid down that once the driver is holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive commercial vehicle of that category. In Kulwant Singh (supra) it has been laid down thus:
"8. We find that the judgments relied upon cover the issue in favour of the Appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria (2008) 3 SCC 464, this Court referred to the provisions of Sections 2(21) and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are definitions of "light motor vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle"
respectively and the Rules prescribing the forms for the licence i.e. Rule 14 and Form 4. It was concluded:
(SCC p. 468, para 20) ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:25 :::HCHP 23 "20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that 'transport vehicle' has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'.
The light motor vehicle continued, at the .
relevant point of time to cover both 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle'. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well."
9. In S. Iyyapan (2013) 7 SCC 62, the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive "light motor vehicle" could drive "light motor vehicle" used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the insurance Co. could not disown its liability. It was observed: (SCC p. 77, para 18) "18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light r motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle.
The impugned judgment [Civil Misc.
Appeal No. 1016 of 2002, order
dated 31-10-2008 (Mad)] is, therefore,
liable to be set aside."
10. No contrary view has been brought to our notice. 11.
Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach of any condition of insurance policy, in the present case, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights."
Though, as held above, and for the reasons assigned by us, the conclusion in Kulwant Singh (supra) was correct, however for the post-amended position after 28.3.2001 also the law continues to be the same for LMV class of vehicles.
42. In Nagashetty (supra), the vehicle involved was a tractor which was used for carrying goods. The goods were carried in ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:25 :::HCHP 24 a trailer attached to it. It was held that if a driver was holding an effective licence to drive a tractor, he could validly drive the tractor attached to a trailer. The .
contention that it was a transport vehicle, as the tractor was attached to a trailer and as such the driver was not holding a valid licence, was rejected. This Court has laid down thus:
"9. Relying on these definitions, Mr. S.C. Sharda submitted that admittedly the trailer was filled with stones. He submitted that once a trailer was attached to the tractor the tractor became a transport vehicle as it was used for carriage of goods. He submitted that Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for grant of licences to drive specific types of vehicles. He submitted that the driver only had a licence to drive a tractor. He submitted that the driver did not have a licence to drive a transport vehicle. He submitted that therefore it could not be said that the driver had an effective and valid driving licence r to drive a goods carriage or a transport vehicle.
He submitted that thus the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive the type of vehicle he was driving. He submitted that as the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, the Insurance Co. could not be made liable. He submitted that the High Court was right in so holding.
10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly Under Section 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to be accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:25 :::HCHP 25 a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a .
particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle.
11. In this case, we find that the Insurance Company when issuing the insurance policy, had also so understood. The insurance policy has been issued for a tractor. In this insurance policy, an additional premium of Rs. 12 has been taken for a trailer. Therefore the insurance policy covers not just the tractor but also a trailer attached to the tractor. The insurance policy provides as follows for the "persons or classes of persons entitled to drive":
'Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive - Any person including insured provided that the r person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence:
Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's licence may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of goods at the time of the accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, limitations as to use.'
12. The policy is for a tractor. The "effective driving licence" is thus for a tractor.
The restriction on a learner driving the tractor when used for transporting goods shows that the policy itself contemplates that the tractor could be used for carriage of goods. The tractor by itself could not carry goods.
The goods would be carried in a trailer attached to it. That is why the extra premium for a trailer. The restriction placed on a person holding a learner's licence i.e. not to drive when goods are being carried is not there for a permanent licence-holder.
Thus a permanent licence-holder having an effective/valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods. When the policy itself so permits, the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that a person having a valid driving licence to drive a tractor ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:25 :::HCHP 26 would become disqualified to drive the tractor if a trailer was attached to it.
43. Section 10(2) (a) to (j) lays down the classes of vehicles to be .
driven not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided, if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of section 10(2). This Court has rightly observed in Nagashetty (supra) that in case submission to the contrary is accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle it by itself does not mean that driver ceased to have valid driving licence. In our considered opinion, even if such a vehicle is treated as transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle class, legal position would not change and driver would still have a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class, whether it is a transport vehicle or a private car/tractor attached with trolley or used for carrying goods in the form of transport vehicle. The ultimate conclusion in Nagashetty (supra) is correct, however, for the reasons as explained by us.
44. In Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors .
(2005) 7 SCC 364, this Court was concerned with the taxation under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 and question arose whether the tractor along with trailer for transporting goods was to constitute distinct category of goods carrier which requires permission under Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1957 and absence thereof would render it liable to tax under ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:25 :::HCHP 27 Section 3(2). This court held that the tractor when attached with the trailer carrying goods, would become a transport vehicle for the purpose of taxation. This Court has discussed .
the question thus:
"Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words "motor vehicle". Although a "trailer" is separately defined in Section 2(46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle, it is still included in the definition of the words "motor vehicle"
under Section 2(28). Similarly, the word "tractor" is defined in Section 2(44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words "motor vehicle" have been defined in the comprehensive sense by the legislature.
Therefore, we have to read the words "motor vehicle" in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act has been enacted in order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles, etc. A combined reading of the aforestated definitions r under Section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of "motor vehicle"
includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself is a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer would constitute a "goods carriage" under Section 2(14) and consequently, a "transport vehicle" under Section 2(47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the above test, we are of the view that the tractor-trailer in the present case falls under Section 2(14) as a "goods carriage"
and consequently, it falls under the definition of "transport vehicle" under Section 2(47) of the MV Act, 1988."
There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition, that tractor if drawing a trailer with goods would constitute goods carrier and consequently would be a transport vehicle. The aforesaid discussion was with respect to taxation and not with respect to the competence of driver holding light motor vehicle licence to drive the tractor attached with trailer/trolley carrying goods. The driver had the competence to drive such a vehicle, tractor with a trailer ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:25 :::HCHP 28 carrying goods being of light motor vehicle category transport vehicle which is the question involved in the instant case. Therefore, the decision renders no help with the cause .
espoused by the insurer.
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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:25 :::HCHP 29 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 under section 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 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:25 :::HCHP 30 "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)(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 r class without any endorsement to that effect.
10. Close reading of aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court clearly suggests that though in one class of vehicle there may be different kinds of vehicles and if they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicle. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that light motor vehicle is a transport vehicle also, as such, 'holder' of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of that class including transport vehicles.
11. Consequently in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court findings returned by learned MACT below qua the validity of licence held/possessed by the appellant-respondent No. 2 at the time of accident deserves to be quashed and set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:25 :::HCHP 31Appellant, who at the relevant time, was admittedly having licence to drive "light motor vehicle" was competent to drive .
"Alto Car", which is a "Light Motor Vehicle" as defined under Section 2 (21) of the Act ibid.
12. As held above, finding returned by learned MACT below qua validity of licence held/possessed by the appellant-
respondent No. 2 is not sustainable and as such same is quashed and set aside and it is held that respondent No. 2 is/was having a valid licence to drive "light motor vehicle" as defined under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, at the time of accident and endorsement, if any, on the licence, with regard to specific type of vehicle, which otherwise is Light Motor Vehicle, is of no consequence.
13. The learned Tribunal below held appellant alongwith respondent No.2 liable to pay the compensation solely for the reason that the driver did not have valid licence to drive the vehicle in question. However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed above, it is clear that the driver was competent to drive the vehicle in question and as such, this Court finds no breach of insurance cover, as claimed by the insurance company.
14. In view of detailed discussion above and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra), the ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:25 :::HCHP 32 appeal is allowed. Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below is modified to the extent that the .
respondent No.3-insurance company is held liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. Appellant is absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 12th September, 2017 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2017 12:36:25 :::HCHP