Allowed

Banwari Lal v. Roshni and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2019CMA/1477/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Vehicle Claims appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order that absolved the insurer. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that a light motor vehicle license covers transport vehicles under 7500 kg, reinstating joint and several liability on the insurer, owners, and driver.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award absolving the insurer was set aside; liability to pay compensation imposed jointly and severally on the insurer, owners, and driver.

Banwari Lal Vs Roshni and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1477/2015

¶3

Banwari Lal S/o Shri Pat Ram, aged about 62 years, resident of 23, USA, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Roshni W/o Late Shri Nagar, by caste Dhanak, resident of Sagara, Tehsil Bhadara, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶7

Karnel S/o Late Shri Nagar, aged about 21 years, by caste Dhanak, resident of Sagara, Tehsil Bhadara, District Hanumangarh. (Raj.)

¶8

Manju D/o Late Shri Nagar (Minor)

¶9

Vakeel S/o Late Shri Nagar (Minor)

¶10

Both through their natural guardian and mother Smt. Roshni W/o Late Shri Nagar (Respondent No.1) resident of Sagara, Tehsil Bhadara, District Hanumangarh.

¶11

----Respondent-claimants

¶12

Tara Chand S/o Asha Ram, by caste Meghwal, resident of Chak 9 P.S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶13

---Non-Claimants-Driver of the Vehicle.

¶14

Shri Vishnu S/o Shri Prithvi Raj, resident of Ward No.3, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

¶15

---Non-claimants No.2-Owner of the Vehicle

¶16

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Manager, Sri Ganganagar

¶17

----Insurance Company of Canter

¶18

For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy For Respondent No.6 : Mr. B.S. Sandhu For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Jagdish Vyas and Mr. Deepak Vyas

¶19

(2 of 6)

¶20

[CMA-1477/2015]

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶22

Order

¶23

08/01/2019

¶24

Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’) challenging judgment and award dated 12.05.2015, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’). By the said judgment & award, the learned Tribunal, while quantifying and awarding compensation to the respondentclaimants, has exonerated the insurer and respondent No.6 present owner of the offending vehicle from its liability and has held liable the appellant and driver Banwari Lal to pay compensation jointly and severally.

¶25

The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that on 30^th of April 2007, deceased Nagar along with other labourers was traveling in Canter vehicle bearing Registration No.RJ-23G-0693 after loading wheat jute bags. When the said vehicle reached near 22 ML, the vehicle turned turtle on account of its plying by its driver rashly and negligently. Due the said accident, Nagar suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized in Sreeram Hospital, Sri Ganganagar where he died during treatment on 20.06.2007. For claiming compensation, legal heirs of deceased Nagar filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the learned Tribunal.

¶26

Upon service of notice, appellant, claiming himself to be the earlier owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement and averred that he had already sold the vehicle to one Vishnu Dutt on

¶27

(3 of 6)

¶28

[CMA-1477/2015]

¶29

23.03.2007 and has no concern with the vehicle, hence not liable to pay any compensation. Vishnu Dutt, Non-claimant No.2A also filed written statement and averred that at the time of accident he was not owner of the vehicle and has been wrongly arrayed as a party to the claim petition.

¶30

The insurer, United India Insurance Company Limited, respondent No.7 herein, also filed written statement and denying the averments contained in the claim petition averred that deceased was 42 years of age at the time of accident and was travelling in the offending vehicle as a passenger and the insured had also violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

¶31

Non-claimant-Driver of the offending vehicle has not filed written statement to the claim petition, as such ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him.

¶32

Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, settled three issues for determination. For substantiating their claim, respondent-claimants examined A.W.1 Roshni, A.W.2 Vinod and A.W.3 Bharatpal, besides tendering eighteen documents. The non-claimants examined NAW-1 Ashish, NAW-2 Vishnu Dutt and exhibited three documents.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that present appellant had sold the vehicle to respondent No.6 Vishnu, as such was not liable to pay compensation. It is also submitted that the issue involved in the matter has already been set at rest by the

¶34

(4 of 6) [CMA-1477/2015]

¶35

Larger Bench of Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2017) 14 SCC 663].

¶36

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondentinsurer submits that the driver of insured vehicle was not having licence to ply heavy goods vehicle and at the time of accident was holding license to ply light motor vehicles. He, therefore, submits that the instant appeal, being bereft of any merit, is liable to be rejected.

¶37

Mr. B.S. Sandhu appearing for respondent No.6 has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated him as at the time of accident he was not the owner of the vehicle.

¶38

I have considered the submissions made at Bar, perused the impugned judgment & award and also scanned record of the case.

¶39

Upon examining the judgment in case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), there remains no quarrel that a transport vehicle, as per 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:

¶40

(5 of 6)

¶41

[CMA-1477/2015]

¶42

“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.

¶43

The definition of ‘light motor vehicle’ makes it

¶44

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 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,

¶45

(6 of 6)

¶46

[CMA-1477/2015]

¶47

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.

¶48

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).”

¶49

In a later judgment rendered by Supreme Court on 06.03.2018 in Jagdish Kumar Sood V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.240/2017) same view is reiterated.

¶50

Relying on judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra), the impugned award to the extent of absolving insurance company is set aside. Appeal is, therefore, accordingly allowed and the liability to pay compensation shall be jointly and severally of the insurer, owner of offending vehicle Banwari Lal & Shri Vishnu and its driver Tara Chand.

¶51

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

(P.K. LOHRA),J

¶53

138-a.asopa/-

Banwari Lal v. Roshni and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banwari Lal v. Roshni and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rita Vig and Anr. Vs Surendra Singh Rathore and Ors.

The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Jamna Bai and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sanwar Lal

Ramkanwari Vs Babu Lal

Jassa Singh @ Jaswant Singh Vs State

Malaram Vs State of Rajasthan