Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award allowing claim petition. Court held driver's light motor vehicle licence was valid for the offending vehicle per Supreme Court precedent, dismissing the insurer's challenge.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award dated 29.08.2013 allowed; appeal dismissed.
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.
(1 of 3)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3690/2013
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. having its Regional Office at Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur through its constituted attorney.
-----Appellant-Non-Claimant
Versus
----Claimant-Respondent
----Non-Claimants-Respondents
__________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed For Respondent no.1 : Mr. Vinay Mathur
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment
10/04/2019
Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 29.08.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by respondent no.1, was allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., respondent no.2 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Hence, insurance company was not liable to indemnify the insured.
(2 of 3 )
Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Hence, insurance company has been rightly ordered to indemnify the insured by the Tribunal.
It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited 2017 (2) RAR 41 (S.C.) , as under:-
“60. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:
(i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is 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 road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g)and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2) (e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to
(3 of 3 )
the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.”
The question that requires consideration in the present case is as to whether respondent no.2 Pushpendra Singh was having a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle.
As per Exhibit-10 offending vehicle is described as light weight vehicle and its gross weight is 990 Kilograms and its unladen weight is 445 Kilograms.
As per Exhibit-9, driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, he was authorized to drive light motorvehicle and motor-cycle with gear.
Thus, in the present case, weight of the offending vehicle does not exceed 7500 kilograms. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan case (supra), driver of the offending vehicle was, thus, having a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. Hence, there is no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the insured.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Mohita/66
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the driver with a light motor vehicle licence was competent to drive the offending transport vehicle after the 1994 Amendment.
Whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured given the driver's licence class and the vehicle weight.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company LimitedExplained¶19
Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2017 (2) RAR 41 (S.C.)
3 provisions across 1 enactments
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bhawani Sharma @ Bhawani Shankar
Pushpendra Singh
Ghyanshyam
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
