National Insurance Company Ltd vs Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors on 22 January, 2008
12. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for
the claimants, Shri Laxman T. Mantangani,
substantiated the reasoning given by the Tribunal
regarding fastening liability, stating that, after due
: 16 :
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
available on file and following the judgment of this
Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal has
fastened the liability. Therefore, interference by this
Court is not called for. To substantiate his submission,
he has taken us through the reasoning given in
paragraph No.13, wherein reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it is held
that the licence obtained by the driver of the vehicle is
valid. Further it is observed that person having licence
to drive L.M.V. would be deemed to have authority to
drive transport vehicle and not exceeding 7,500 kg.
laden weight, weight of the vehicle and in the instant
case, the vehicle involved is weighing about 975 kg.,
and he deemed to have the effective driving licence to
drive the vehicle involved in the instant case and the
reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant - Insurer cannot be made applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the case on hand and they
have not produced any documents to show that the
: 17 :
vehicle involved is weighing more than 7,500 kg.
Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained
and also Ex.R-2 - registration letter issued and since
the driver of the vehicle has got valid licence as on the
date of the accident, not having authorization to drive
the transport vehicle may not invalidate. Nor it is the
case of the appellant - Insurer that they have initiated
any separate proceedings against the owner and driver
regarding not having valid licence. The claimants being
a third party, sustained injury and are seeking redressal
of their grievance for compensation on account of
injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Taking
such stand in the instant case is not justifiable. Taking
into consideration, the submission of the learned
counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusal
of the reasoning given by the Tribunal in paragraph
Nos.12, 13 and 14 of the judgment, wherein the
Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court 2009 (1) TAC page 826 (Patna)
wherein their lordships have observed that any person
: 18 :
having licence to drive L.M.V. would be deemed to have
authority to drive transport vehicle not exceeding laden
weight of 7,500 kgs., and the licence held by the driver
of the offending vehicle is valid because the weight of
the vehicle is only 975 kgs., and further as held by the
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others reported in
2008 ACJ 721, the driver in the instant case was driving
a van which had a goods carriage permit and Insurance
Company seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that
driver did not possess an effective driving licence to
drive a transport vehicle. The Tribunal held that driver
was authorised to drive the vehicle as the unladen
weight of the vehicle is less than 7,500 kg., and the
High Court did not accept the contention of the
Insurance Company that it has no liability on the
ground that there is violation of terms and conditions of
the policy. The transport vehicle has now been
substituted for medium goods vehicle and heavy goods
vehicle in Form No.4 but L.M.V. continued to cover
: 19 :
both, light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods
carriage vehicle. Whether a driver who had valid licence
to drive a L.M.V. was authorized to drive a light goods
vehicle as well and upheld that he has got valid licence.
This aspect of the matter has been rightly considered
and appreciated and recorded the concurrent finding of
fact against the appellant - Insurer, and the same is
strictly in consonance with the material on file. Taking
into consideration, the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court interference by this Court is not called for.
However, so far as the judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing for the insurer is concerned,
there is no dispute or quarrel with regard to the ratio of
law laid down in the said judgment but te same cannot
be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the case on hand for the reason that in the case on
hand the driver was holding driving licence to drive the
L.M.V. and the vehicle was weighing around 975 kgs.
This aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and held that, under such circumstances, there
: 20 :
is no need to obtain authorisation from the
jurisdictional R.T.O. Hence, we answer Point No.2
against the appellant - Insurer, upholding the reasoning
given by the Tribunal.