Allowed

M/S Goyal Air Product v. Harpreet Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Aug 2010FAO/66/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the appeal by condoning a 553-day delay. The Single Judge held that since the application form and Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act do not distinguish between motor vehicle categories for licensing, a Light Transport Vehicle licence was sufficient. Consequently, the award against the vehicle owner was modified, and the insurer bound to fully indemnify.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Tribunal casting liability on the owner was modified; the insurer is bound to indemnify the award fully and comprehensively.

M/S Goyal Air Product Vs Harpreet Kaur and Ors. — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

F.A.O. NO. 66 OF 2009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

F.A.O. NO. 66 OF 2009(O&M) Date of decision:17^th August, 2010

¶5

M/s Goyal Air Product G.T. Road Khanna side Mandi Gobindgarh. (Owner of Tempo No. PB-23-D/4271) through its Partners Sh. Vinod Goyal and Sushil Mittal.

¶6

.......Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Harpreet Kaur and others

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN

¶11

Present: Mr. S.S.Kamboj, Advocate, for Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes

¶15

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

¶16

K.Kannan, J.(Oral)

¶17

Civil Misc. No. 243-CII of 2009

¶18

Allowed as prayed for.

¶19

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of

¶20

553 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶21

F.A.O.No. 66 of 2009

¶22

1. The appellant who was saddled with the liability to bear the award by a right of recovery given to the insurer, is in appeal on the ground that the right offered was on the basis that

¶23

F.A.O. NO. 66 OF 2009

¶24

¶25

the driver did not have a valid driving licence. This finding according to the learned counsel is erroneous for the vehicle which was involved in the accident, was a Medium Commercial Vehicle of unladen weight of 9600 kilo grams and therefore, the Light Transport Vehicle licence which he had was not sufficient to drive a Medium Commercial Vehicle.

¶26

2. To decide the issue whether the driver was duly licenced and he had an effective driving licence, they must be read in the context of Sections 3, 10 and 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 3 of the Act requires no more than the fact that if a person is driving a transport vehicle, the licence must specifically bear an endorsement that he was entitled to drive a transport vehicle. Section 10 sets out the form and contends that licence to drive which sets, inter alia, Light Motor Vehicle as a clause distinct from a transport vehicle. It may be noticed that Section 10 of the Act does not make any distinction between Light Motor Vehicle, Medium Motor Vehicle or Heavy Motor Vehicle, but these distinctions, however, exist and each one of the above clauses is defined under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Medium Goods Vehicle is defined under Section 2(23) of the Act as any other goods carriage than a Light Motor Vehicle or a Heavy Goods Vehicle. Light Motor Vehicle has been defined under Section 2(21) of the Act whose unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kilo grams. Heavy Goods Vehicle and Heavy Passenger Vehicle are defined under Section 2(16), 2(17) of the Act. Relevant criteria among

¶27

F.A.O. NO. 66 OF 2009

¶28

¶29

other details for the heavy category could be that it shall exceed 12,000 kilo grams.

¶30

3. While these distinctions exist for the purpose of the nature of permit fee to be collected etc. in my view, they have no bearing to the nature of the licence that has to be issued for that has to be seen only through the prism of Section 10 of the Act. The rules which have been framed under the Act namely the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 prescribes in Form 4, the form of application for licence to drive a motor vehicle. It does not make a distinction between motor vehicles as a Light Motor Vehicle, Medium Motor Vehicle or Heavy Motor Vehicle. The categories that are found in the form are a replication of words found under Section 10(2) of the Act. While it is possible for a person to apply for a Light Motor Vehicle or a Transport Vehicle, the application form itself does not talk about a Heavy Motor Vehicle, Medium Motor Vehicle or Light Motor Vehicle. These categories however do exist under the definition clauses in Motor Vehicels Act. A person who drives a motor vehicle with a light motor vehicle licence with an endorsement of transport vehicle cannot be said to be 'duly licensed' unless it is shown with the driving skills are different such as it may happen when a person who has a licence to drive a car may not know to drive a scooter or a motor cycle for they require different driving skills. Same way a person who may drive a car may not know to drive a Heavy Passenger Vehicle. The issue of whether a person having one type of licence can drive a vehicle of another category is

¶31

¶32

F.A.O. NO. 66 OF 2009

¶33

more an issue of fact than what can obtain to the benefit of the insurer to plead exclusion of liability.

¶34

4. In this case, the driver was having a Light Transport Vehicle licence and we have seen that he was driving a Medium Commercial Vehicle. I have not been shown to any particular authority which makes this distinction as relevant to avail to the insurer to plead an exclusion of liability. Mere statement that Light Motor Vehicles, Medium Motor Vehicles and Heavy Motor Vehicles are distinct categories and such distinctions are maintained in the Act do not carry the argument further than to hold that so long as the form of application or the language of Section 10 of the Act does not provide for such distinction, unless it was elicited that he could not have the skill to drive the particular class of vehicle which he was driving. I cannot accept the contention that the driver of the vehicle was not duly licenced to drive the vehicle. Under the circumstance the award of the Tribunal in so far as it cast the liability on the owner is modified and the insurer is bound to indemnify the award fully and comprehensively, the liability of the owner of the vehicle. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶35

[K.KANNAN] JUDGE

¶36

17^th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik

M/S Goyal Air Product v. Harpreet Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Goyal Air Product v. Harpreet Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhvinder Singh Vs Vijay Kumar & Ors.

Punjab Wakf Board Vs Nagar Panchayat, Shahkot

(O&M) the New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Lachhmi and Others

Bharti Lal and Anr. Vs Phoola Devi and Ors.

Kavita and Ors. Vs Chand Ram and Ors.

(O&M) New India Assurance Co. ;Ltd Vs Kavita and Others