Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"...49-Drivers badge: The driver of a public service vehicle shall while on duty, display on Ms left breast a metal badge, in the Form illustrated in the Second Schedule to these Rules issued by and inscribed with the name of the district of the authority by which an authorization to drive a transport vehicle has been granted and the word "DRIVER" together with an identification number. A badge granted under this Rule shall be valid throughout the State:
Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to a person holding an effective driving licence authorizing him to drive a motor-car and is driving a motor-car hired by him for his own use..."

Relying on this Rule, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that since at the time of accident, the driver of the crime vehicle was not wearing the badge, mandated by Rule 49, it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation and the award is liable to be set aside.

12. Rule 49 of A.P. M.V. Rules, 1964 is superseded by Rule 37 of the A.P. M.V. Rules, 1989, which is verbatim the same as extracted above. Rule 37(4) further mandates that the driver of a public service vehicle, while on duty, in addition to the badge display on his right breast a plate in white plastic of size 8 CM X 2 CM inscribed with his name in bold black letters of size 0.5 cm. both in English and Telugu, one below the other respectively. The cost of the name plate shall be borne by the weaver himself. Now what is required to be considered is whether non-wearing of the metallic drivers badge, mandated by Rule 37 of the size as prescribed in Second Schedule to the Rules, showing the name of the driver and the Authority of the District which has issued the same to drive the public transport vehicle, in any way contributed for the occurrence of the accident. Incidentally, this Court has to also see whether the insured - owner of the jeep has intentionally engaged the driver to drove the transport vehicle knowing well that he is not having a badge, in terms of Rule 37. The Apex Court, had an occasion to deal with the words "duly licensed" occurring in Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in a decision National Insurance Company Limited v. Swarcn Singh and others, , wherein the Apex Court has considered the scope and ambit of Sections 3 and 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act with regard to the obligation of driver to hold effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 prescribes forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in subsection (2) thereof. Various types of vehicles for which the driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are described, in Para 89 of the judgment, as under:

15. Admittedly, the driver of the jeep was holding an effective licence and it was subsisting as on the date of accident. That apart, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the driver did not wear the metallic badge, as contemplated under Rule 37 and it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy, cannot be countenanced, for the simple reason that the purpose of issuance of the metallic badge (Rule 37(1) or the name plate (Rule 37 (4), only for the identity of the driver and the District Authority which has issued the same, apart from authorizing such driver to drive the public transport vehicle throughout the State. By any stretch of magination, non-wearing of the badge, as contemplated under Rule 37, can be extended to attribute any cause for occurrence of the accident. Therefore, in view of these facts, I hold that non-wearing of the metallic badge, as mandated by Rule 37, is not violative of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

17. Admittedly, the driver of the jeep had a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle yet he did not possess the metallic badge, it cannot be concluded that the accident had occurred due to the non-wearing of badge or that the non-wearing of the metallic badge has in any way contributed for the accident. An exception carved out to this Rule is that it shall not apply to a person holding an effective driving licence authorizing him to drive a motor-car and driving a motor-car hired by him for his own use and he need not display the badge.