Dismissed

Rajpal & Anr. v. Biram Wati & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2012FAO/4776/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The automobile driver and owner appealed an award holding them liable after a TATA Ace (goods-carrying vehicle) accident caused by rash driving. The court observed the driver lacked a valid endorsement for goods vehicles and applied Supreme Court precedent, dismissing the appeal and rejecting interference.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the impugned award was upheld.

Rajpal & Anr. Vs Biram Wati & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.4776 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.4776 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:23.1.2012

Rajpal and another

....Appellants

Versus

Biram Wati and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.SK Panwar, Advocate for the appellants

¶12

Mr.Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶13

Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶16

The driver and the owner have filed the present appeal, assailing the impugned Award dated 18.3.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which the claim petition was allowed and the appellants were held liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the driver-appellant No.1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. He possessed a LMV driving licence i.e. for driving the Car, Jeep and Tractor. He has further contended that the offending vehicle i.e. TATA

¶18

FAO No.4776 of 2011 (O&M) 2

¶19

Ace, falls in the category of Light Motor Vehicle and the vehicle was fully insured with the Insurance Company. However, the liability has wrongly been fastened upon the appellants. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Mahender Singh and others 2010(1) RCR (Civil), 934 and Oriental Insurance Company vs. Mukesh 2011(2) RCR (Civil), 508.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence for LMV i.e. for Car, Jeep and Tractor and not for driving goods carrying vehicle. The offending vehicle i.e. TATA Ace is a good carrying vehicle. She has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angad Kol and others 2009 (2) RCR (Civil), 419.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

¶22

It is proved that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of appellant No.1-the driver . The vehicle involved in the accident was a TATA Ace, which as per Registration Certificate Ex.R-4, falls int eh category of goods carrying vehicle. No doubt, the appellant No.1 was holding a valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles i.e. Car, Jeep and Tractor. As per Section 2(21) of the Act, an endorsement is must to ply the goods carrying vehicle. However, there is no endorsement on the licence of the driver to ply the goods carrying vehicles. Undisputedly, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company.

¶23

FAO No.4776 of 2011 (O&M) 3

¶24

However, the licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was not valid for driving the Goods carrying vehicles, which is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy Ex.R2/Ex.R3. In Angad Kol and others' case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶25

“8. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. ‘Driving licence’ has been defined in Section 2(10) to mean the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. “Goods carriage” has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. The said Act also defines ‘heavy goods vehicle’, ‘heavy passenger motor vehicle’, ‘medium goods vehicle’ and ‘medium passenger motor vehicle’ as well as a ‘light motor vehicle’ in Section 2(21) of the Act to mean :

¶26

“ ‘light motor vehicle’ means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed

¶27

FAO No.4776 of 2011 (O&M)

¶28

¶29

7500 kilograms.”

¶30

Although the definition of the ‘light motor vehicle’ brings within its umbrage both ‘transport vehicle’ or ‘omnibus’, indisputably, as would be noticed infra, a distinction between an effective licence granted for transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists. Section 3 provides for the necessity of driveling licence,

¶31

stating :

¶32

“ 3. Necessity for driving licence.— (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor car or moter cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.

¶33

(2) …”

¶34

Section 9 provides for grant of driving licence. Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect :

¶35

“ 10. Form and contents of licences to drive.— (1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such

¶36

FAO No.4776 of 2011 (O&M)

¶37

¶38

form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

¶39

(2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:-

¶40

(a) to (c) …

¶41

(d) light motor vehicle;

¶42

(e) transport vehicle;

¶43

(i) road Roller;

¶44

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.”

¶45

The distinction between a ‘light motor vehicle’ and a ‘transport vehicle’ is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a ‘transport vehicle’ and a ‘passenger vehicle’ can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective licence to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years.”

¶46

In the present case, no endorsement was made on the driving licence Ex.R1, held by the driver-appellant No.1, to drive the goods

¶47

FAO No.4776 of 2011 (O&M)

¶48

¶49

carrying vehicle i.e. TATA Ace. The licence held by the driver was valid for driving the Light Motor Vehicles i.e. Car, Jeep and Tractor.

¶50

As a sequel of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to

¶51

interfere in the impugned Award. As such, the present appeal being bereft of any merit is dismissed.

¶52