Appeal by insurer challenging Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in accident death claim. Court dismissed appeal relying on Supreme Court precedent permitting LH license for transport vehicles under 7500 kgs.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2354/2017
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Kothari with Ms. Apeksha Lodha. For Respondent : Mr. R.S. Mankad. Nos.1-3
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Order
26/10/2018
Appellant-Insurer has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’) challenging judgment and award dated 18.03.2017, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salumbar, District Udaipur (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’). The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment & award, while adjudicating the claim, laid on behalf of respondentclaimants, under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act, partly allowed the same and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,93,000/-. The aforesaid claim was laid by the respondent-
(2 of 5)
[CMA-2354/2017]
claimants on account of accidental death of Sheeva Meena, who was their bread-winner. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia averred that respondent No.1 is widow of deceased, respondent No.2 is his daughter and respondent No.3 is his mother.
The claim petition is contested by owner, driver and the Insurer of the offending vehicle.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurer, in order to assail impugned judgment & award, has precisely raised one ground, i.e., violation of the conditions of insurance policy. It is contended by learned counsel that the driver of insured vehicle was having driving licence of motorcycle & LMV and the insured vehicle Tempo was used as transport vehicle. It is also contended that the gross weight of insured vehicle was less than 7500 kg, and therefore, the same could be driven only by a person holding LMV licence.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants has submitted that the ground raised by appellant is no more res integra and the same has already been set at rest by the Larger Bench of Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2017) 14 SCC 663]. He, therefore, submits that the instant appeal, being bereft of any merit, is liable to be rejected. It is further argued by learned counsel for the respondent-claimants that the impugned award has already been executed, and therefore, in the changed circumstances also, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the same.
(3 of 5)
[CMA-2354/2017]
I have considered the submissions made at Bar, perused the impugned judgment & award and also scanned record of the case.
Upon examining the judgment in case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), there remains no quarrel that a transport vehicle, as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Section 2(15) & 2(48) includes an “omnibus”, as the gross weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. The Court further held that holder of a driving licence to drive the class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) would be 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. The Court held:
“Prior to amendment in 1994 licence for transport vehicle was clearly covered as per Section 10(2)in five categories, i.e., Section 10(2) (d) light motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(e) medium goods vehicle, Section 10(2)(f) medium passenger motor vehicle, Section 10(2)(g) heavy goods vehicle and Section 10(2)(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle. The licence for ‘light motor vehicle’ has been provided in section 10(2)(d). The expression ‘transport vehicle’ has been inserted by virtue of Amendment Act 54/1994 in Section 10(2) (e) after deleting four categories or classes of vehicles, i.e. medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, and heavy passenger motor vehicle. Earlier Section 10 did not contain the separate class of transport vehicles.
The definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ makes it clear that for 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 7500 kgs. ‘Gross vehicle weight’ has been defined in section 2(15). The motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as defined in Section 2(48) of the Act, are also the light motor vehicle. No change has been made by Amendment Act of 54/94 in the provisions
(4 of 5)
[CMA-2354/2017]
contained in Sections 2(21) and 10(2)(d) relating to the light motor vehicle. The definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with Section 10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly clear that ‘light motor vehicle’ is also a ‘transport vehicle’, the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as specified in the provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as specified in Section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of Section 3 of the Act requires that a person in order to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ must have authorization. Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor, the unladen weight of which, as the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg. The insertion of ‘transport vehicle’ category in Section 10(2)(e) has no effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of the class of light motor vehicle. A distinction is made in the Act of heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on the basis of ‘gross vehicle weight’ or ‘unladen weight’ for heavy passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, the weight, as the case may be, exceed 12000 kg. Medium goods vehicle shall mean any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle; whereas ‘medium passenger motor vehicle’ means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a motorcycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle.
Thus, the newly incorporated expression ‘transport vehicle’ in section 10(2)(e) would include only the vehicles of the category as defined in Section 2(16) - heavy goods vehicle, Section 2(17) - heavy passenger motor vehicle, Section 2(23) – medium goods vehicle and Section 2(24) medium passenger motor vehicle, and would not include the ‘light motor vehicle’ which means transport vehicle also of the weight specified in Section 2(21).”
Thus, in view of the judgment in case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment & award. At this stage, it would also be noteworthy that the
(5 of 5)
[CMA-2354/2017]
impugned judgment & award has already been executed and the claim amount deposited by Insurer has already been disbursed to the respondent-claimants.
In view of foregoing discussion, the instant appeal lacks merit and same is hereby rejected.
(P.K. LOHRA),J
Twinkle Singh/
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company LimitedFollowed¶25
Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2017) 14 SCC 663] · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 1 enactments
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited
Smt. Sugana W/o Sheeva Meena
Sunita D/o Late Sheeva Meena
Smt. Vesu W/o Late Nathu Lal Meena
Govind S/o Kewa Ram Meena
Bharat Singh S/o Hamer Singh
P.K. LOHRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
