The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against a compensation award. The court held that a driver possessing a valid Light Motor Vehicle license is entitled to drive the insured transport vehicle within that category, negating a policy breach.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. No 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.02.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
C.M.A.No.2538 of 2013
M/s.Iffco Tokkiyo General Insurance Co.Ltd., Tulsi Chamber, 3rd Floor, 195, TV Samy Road(West), RS Puram, Coimbatore. ...Appellant
vs. 1.Deepanchakravarthy 2.R.Chandrakala ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the judgment and decree in W.C.No.102 of 2009, dated 03.01.2013 (received on 15.3.2013) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan
For Respondent : M/s.C.Kulanthaivel
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved over the award passed by the authority of the Workmen's Compensation Act in W.C.No.102 of 2009 dated 03.01.2003 the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.
"1. Whether the lower Court is correct in holding the Appellant liable when the petitioner was driving the insured vehicle without possessing valid and effective license on the date of accident?".
policy condition and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
"The LMV 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 LMV therefore was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well".
“ Applying the principles of law as discussed above to the fact of the present case, I am of the considered view that as the claimant driver was holding a driving licence authorizing him to drive a "light motor vehicle" and admittedly the Autorickshaw comes within the definition of a "light motor vehicle" the driving licence held by the claimant-driver was valid and effective and there was no violation of policy condition".
others reported in AIR 2008 SC 1418 and I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the authority. Under such circumstances the question of law is answered against the appellant and in the result the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dpq
To
1. The Workmen's Compensation,
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem.
2. The Section Officer, Vr.Section, High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr. C. Kulanthaivel, Advocate Sr.
C.M.A.No.2538 of 2013
AD(CO)
EU(10/05/2018 )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court is correct in holding the appellant liable when the driver was operating the insured vehicle without a valid and effective license.
Whether a valid LMV license permits driving the insured transport vehicle under the policy conditions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Annappa Irappa NesariaFollowed¶17
(2008 1 TNMAC 200)
M/s.United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Prakash Chandra PatraApplied¶19
(2010 4 TAC 714)
Mukund Dewangan Vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.Followed¶22
AIR 2017 SC 3668 · Who else cites this
National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Annappa Irappa NesariaFollowed¶23
AIR 2008 SC 1418 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Iffco Tokkiyo General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Deepanchakravarthy
R.Chandrakala
M. Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
