Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19) Issue No.2:- Respondent No.2 has taken contention that, as on the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and said vehicle was not having fitness certificate and respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The respondent No.2 examined RW.1 who has stated in evidence that, as per driving licence extract, K.B.Ravikumar driver was permitted to drive LMV motor cycle with gear, LMV non-transport car, LMV tractor non transport and they will issue driving licence to the driver to drive the tractor and trailer. He has stated that, driver of the tractor trailer commercial vehicle requires permit and should possess tractor trailer transport driving licence and as per Ex.R.2, the driver was not qualified to drive the tractor trailer commercial. In the cross- examination of RW.1, he has stated that, at the time of issuing driving licence they will conduct examination and at that time, drivers of tractor will bring both tractor and trailer, but in this case, the driver had not brought trailer at the time of examination and in case only tractor is brought at the time of examination, the driving licence will be issued only for the purpose of agricultural purpose and in case, tractor and trailer brought at the time of examination, driving licence will be issued for agricultural purpose and in case of commercial use, they will issue permit which will have yellow board. He has stated that, they will issue driving licence on the basis of requisition made in the application. They will issue driving licence for non transport for the period of 20 years and driving licence for transport for the period of 3 years. RW.1 has produced driving licence extract of driver by name K.B. Ravikumar and as per the said document, he was having driving licence for LMV motor cycle with gear, LMV non-transport car, LMV tractor non transport for the period from 27.01.2012 to 26.01.2013. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 reported in Nagashetty V/s United India Insurance Company Limited and others, A.I.R 2001 SC 3356, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, the person having driving licence to drive the tractor does not become disqualified to drive tractor if trailer is attached to it, insurance company cannot be absolved that as on the grounds that licence to drive tractor becomes ineffective if trailer is attached to tractor is attached to it. In the said decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held as under:

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 remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid and effective driving licence driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid and effective driving 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 and effective 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.

Thus a permanent licence holder having an effective valid and effective driving licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods. When the policy is used for carrying goods. When the policy itself so permits, a person having a valid and effective driving licence to drive a tractor would not become disqualified to drive the tractor if a trailer was attached to it. Therefore, insurance company is liable to pay compensation. Insurance Company cannot be absolved from liability for reasoning that, driver who has licence to drive tractor cannot be said to have valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle.

It is clear from the said decision that, if a person had valid driving licence to drive tractor or motor cycle, he continues valid licence to drive motor cycle. It is also clearly held in the said decision that, a person having driving licence to drive tractor because the trailer is added to that vehicle. It is also held that, the permanent licence holder have effective driving licence to carrying goods and the insurance policy cannot absolved from liability for the reason that, driver was holding driving licence to drive tractor was not qualified to drive tractor with trailer. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I hold that, the contention regarding driving licence taken by the respondent No.2 is not acceptable. Even in one more decision reported in the Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s Sri. Chennabasavaiah and others, 2012(2) MACR 739 (Kar), Hon'ble High Court has held that, the driver who had driving licence to drive the vehicle prior to the date of amendment of Rule 14 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules are entitled to drive light motor vehicle of both transport and non- transport, including light goods carriage vehicle, provided the unladen weight of the said vehicle is less than 7500 kgs. In this case also, the driver was holding driving licence to drive the vehicle and RW.1 has stated in his evidence that, the driver was holding driving licence as per Ex.R.2. As per the said document, the driver was having driving licence to drive LML tractor non- transport which was valid from 27.01.2012 to 26.01.2013 in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. In the light of principles laid down in the above said decision, I hold that, contention of insurance company is not acceptable. So, I answer issue No.2 in Negative.