High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against the Claims Tribunal's award granting compensation. The court held the insurer liable as the driver possessed a valid license for light motor vehicles, covering the accident vehicle.
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 76 of 2014
Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Near To Jhankar Talkies, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G.
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents: None, though served.
Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, J Order On Board
13.09.2018
2
authorized to drive the vehicle in question as he was entitled to drive the light motor vehicle only and, in absence of any endorsement he was driving the same, therefore, the insurance company, under such circumstances, cannot be held liable.
3
was due to rashness and negligent driving by the claimant himself. It is contested further on the ground that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and was being driven by said Shyamlal Sahu, who was possessing the effective and valid driving licence, therefore, in case of any liability being fastened, the same would be indemnified by the appellant/Insurance Company.
4
was not possessing the effective and valid driving licence, the appellant/insurer has examined one Ramkaran Ratre, as Non-applicant witness No.2, who is working as Assistant Grade-II in the Office of the Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur. A bare perusal of his statement would show that said driver (Shyamlal Sahu) was authorized to drive the light motor vehicle and was authorized to drive the heavy goods vehicle only with effect from 31.07.2009, i.e., much after the occurrence of the alleged accident. It is true that when the alleged accident has taken place, at that particular time, the driver was authorized to drive the light motor vehicle and was not authorized to drive the heavy goods vehicle as stated by the said witness. It is, however, pertinently to be noted here that the alleged offending vehicle “Mahindra Jeep” bearing its registration No. CG17/ZT/0193 insured as “Passengers Carrying Commercial Vehicle” was not a heavy goods vehicle. It is a light motor vehicle as defined under Section 2(21) of the Act. Therefore, merely on this ground, it cannot be held that the driver of it, i.e. Shyamlal Sahu, who was possessing the driving licence (Ex.D.-2) to drive the light motor vehicle, was not entitled to drive the said offending vehicle. Even no endorsement as such is needed. Even otherwise, the burden to prove that the driver was not possessing the effective and valid driving licence to drive the said offending vehicle was heavily upon the Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company has failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence to prove the same. 9. At this juncture, the principles laid down in “ Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited” reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 , is to be noted, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court, has held that even in absence of any endorsement as such, the driver who was
5
authorized to drive the light motor vehicle would be entitled to drive the vehicle of same kind. Paragraphs 60.1, 60.2 and 60.4 are relevant for the purpose and reproduced hererin as under:-
60.1. “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 Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.
60.2. 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 roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving license 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 roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the license is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A license issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.
60.4. 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 license 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 license to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.
6
obtained the sum of Rs.60,996/- from the Government towards medical expenses, and therefore, he is not entitled to get the said amount again from the appellant/Insurance Company, is also noted to be rejected, as neither the plea nor any evidence has been adduced by the insurer in this regard.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Agrawal) JUDGE
Nikita
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company LimitedApplied¶9
(2017) 14 SCC 663 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 1 enactments
Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited
Sampatsingh Nag
Shyamlal Sahu
Mo. Umar Khan
Sanjay Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
