Allowed

Smt Pana and Ors. v. Meghraj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Dec 2023CRW/9/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil review petition, the Rajasthan High Court quashed its own 2011 judgment had dismissed a dispute regarding compensation awarded after a road accident where the deceased driver held a Heavy Motor Vehicle license but drove a Light Motor Vehicle. The court held the driver was adequately licensed.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 27.09.2011 was recalled; the review petition was allowed, and the Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.

Smt Pana and Ors. Vs Meghraj and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:40716]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 9/2012

¶4

Smt. Pana W/o Chaturbhuj, R/o Naya Gaon, P.s. Uniara, District Tonk.

¶5

Sheoji S/o Late Shri Chaturbhuj, R/o Naya Gaon, P.s. Uniara, District Tonk.

¶6

Ram Prakash S/o Late Shri Chaturbhuj, R/o Naya Gaon, P.s. Uniara, District Tonk.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Meghraj S/o Shri Devpal, By Caste Gurjar, Neem Ki Chauki, Sawai Madhopur

¶10

M/s Khatri Panna Lal Prem Raj, Bidi Factory, Sawai Madhopur, C/o Partners Radhe Shyam, S/o Bal Mukund, By Caste Khatri, R/o Sawai Madhopur, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur

¶11

The New India Assurance Co., Its Regional Office Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Regional Manager

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. P. Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amar Nath Pareek Mr. Kapil Sharma on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Mathur

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶15

Order

¶16

Date of Reserved : : 29/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement : : 20/12/2023

¶17

This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the judgment dated 27.09.2011 passed by this Court in SB Civil Cross Objection No.08617/2009 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal

[2023:RJ-JP:40716]

[CRW-9/2012]

(2 of 8)

No.852/1997 (Smt. Pana & Ors. Vs. Meghraj & Ors) whereby the cross-objection and appeal have been dismissed.

¶22

Brief relevant facts for the present purposes are that a claim petition No.106/1995 was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as the learned 'Tribunal') claiming compensation due to death of one Chaturbhuj. Learned Tribunal vide its judgment dated 26.05.1997 disposed of the claim petition and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- in favour of the claimants. Learned Tribunal in the said judgment has held that driver, who was driving the car, was not holding a valid license at the time of accident, as he was driving a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), while possessing a driving license of Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) and, therefore, the learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company and fastened the liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

¶23

The judgment of the learned Tribunal was challenged by way of an appeal before this Court by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against which a cross-objection was also filed by the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. M/s Khatri Panna Lal.

¶24

It was stated in the cross-objection that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license and, therefore, he was competent to drive the light motor vehicle and thus, the judgment was erroneous on this count alone.

¶25

This Court vide its judgment dated 27.09.2011 dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants as well as the cross-objection filed by the owner of the offending vehicle.

[2023:RJ-JP:40716]

[CRW-9/2012]

(3 of 8)

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.09.2011, the present review petition has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶30

Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that judgment dated 27.09.2011 passed by this Court is against the law applicable, therefore, there is a mistake apparent on the face of it and thus, the judgment deserves to be recalled and reviewed. He further submitted that the provisions contained under Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that a person must hold a license to drive LMV for at least one year in order to get a license for transport vehicle, which includes both medium and heavy vehicles. He argued that as soon as the person gets the driving license of the category of heavy motor vehicle, his driving license of Light Motor Vehicle merges with the transport vehicle. In the present case also the driver of the offending vehicle was holding driving license of Heavy Motor Vehicle and driving a Light Motor Vehicle at the time of accident, therefore, the provisions contained under Section 7 of the MV Act are applicable in the present case.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the review petition is maintainable, as this Court has failed to properly consider the judgment cited by the petitioner-respondent while passing the judgment dated 27.09.2011. He prayed that the review petition be allowed.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company submitted that there is no patent infirmity in the judgment dated 27.09.2011 of this Court, therefore, the review petition is not maintainable. He further

[2023:RJ-JP:40716]

[CRW-9/2012]

(4 of 8)

submitted that scope of review petition is very limited and, therefore, the review petition is liable to be rejected. He also argued that there is no ground to interfere with the judgment dated 27.09.2011.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available on record.

¶38

It is an admitted position that the driver of offending vehicle on the date of accident was holding a driving license to drive Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV), whereas at the time of accident the driver was driving a car, which is a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV).

¶39

Learned Tribunal in its judgment dated 26.05.1997 has held that as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle and, therefore, there was a breach of insurance policy and held that driver/owner of the offending vehicle was liable to pay the compensation.

¶40

For ready reference the provisions of Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are reproduced hereinbelow :

¶41

"7. Restrictions on the granting of learner's licenses for certain vehicles - (1) No person shall be granted a learner's license to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year

¶42

[Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to an e-cart or e-rickshaw]

¶43

(2) No person under the age of eighteen years shall be granted a learner's license to drive a motor cycle without gear except with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the person desiring the learner's license."

[2023:RJ-JP:40716]

[CRW-9/2012]

(5 of 8)

After perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is abundantly clear that a person is not entitled to have driving licenses to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licenses to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year. In other words, holder of driving license to drive a transport vehicle necessarily possess the skill to drive a light motor vehicle.

¶48

The same issue came before the Punjab and Haryana High

¶49

Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parkashi and Ors., reported in 2017 ACJ 1922, in which it was held as under :

¶50

"Similar issue was considered by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in N

¶51

Kashmir) , 2011 (2) J.K.J. 357 . After referring to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as also the case law on the subject, it was concluded that holder of a licence to drive HTV (PE), cannot be said to be having no licence for driving Light Motor Vehicle as they are of the same type. It was observed as under:

¶52

"32. Section 10(2) of the MV Act provides that driving licence shall be express as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of various classes, such as:

¶53

(a) motor cycle without gear;

¶54

(b) motor cycle with gear;

¶55

(c) invalid carriage;

¶56

(d) light motor vehicle;

¶57

(e) transport vehicle;

¶58

(f) road-roller;

¶59

(g) motor vehicle of a specified description.

[2023:RJ-JP:40716]

[CRW-9/2012]

(6 of 8)

33. The aforesaid classification does not give the description of all the vehicles but gives the description of type of vehicles. In the said backdrop the vehicle (Scorpio), in the context of definitions as given to transport vehicle, is held to be the vehicle of same type.

¶64

34. In paragraph 47 of the three Judge judgment as referred hereinabove, it has been held that "if a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type".

¶65

35. Applying the same ratio to the facts of the instant case, the driver, holder of licence to drive HTV(PE), while driving a Scorpio (Light Motor Vehicle) cannot be said to be having no licence for driving such type of vehicle which in effect is not different and more so when in terms of Section 7 of the Act precondition for obtaining licence for driving transport vehicles, means heavy vehicle, is to possess licence for driving light motor vehicle at least for one year. ..... ......

¶66

38. The category of the vehicle is of essence and then to hold license for driving a particular category of vehicles having different types can be driven by the driver who possesses driving license for driving such type of vehicles.

¶67

39. For the stated reasons, the driver, holder of licence to drive HTV(PE) while driving vehicle (Scorpio) cannot be said to be not holding the licence to drive such type of vehicle, so is held to be having valid and effective license, resultantly

[2023:RJ-JP:40716]

[CRW-9/2012]

(7 of 8)

there being no violation of specified condition, the insurer is held liable to pay the compensation."

¶72

This issue was also considered by this Court in Harsewak Singh son of Niranjan Singh v. Lajo Devi wife of Gurmail Singh, (Punjab And Haryana) 2013 (2) PLR 809 , wherein, agreeing with the decisions of different High Courts, it was held that possession of licence to drive HTV must be seen as sufficient qualification for a person to drive a LMV also, as the mechanism to drive in both the categories of vehicles was the same."

¶73

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has also considered the same issue in Harsewak Singh Vs. Lajo Devi & Ors reported in 2014 ACJ 719 wherein agreeing with the decision of different High Courts with regard to possession of license, it was held that possessing a licence to drive HMV must be seen as sufficient qualification for a person to drive a LMV, as the mechanism to drive the both are the same.

¶74

As per the discussions aforesaid, it is clear that a person cannot have a driving license to drive a heavy motor vehicle unless he earlier had a license to drive light motor vehicle for at least one year.

¶75

As per the judgment of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Parkashi (supra) , it is clear that if a person is holding a license to drive heavy motor vehicle while driving a light motor vehicle, it cannot be said that he has no license at all and, therefore, there cannot be a breach of policy condition in such a situation. The same issue was raised on behalf of learned counsel for the review petitioner before this Court earlier also in the cross-objection and

(8 of 8)

[2023:RJ-JP:40716]

[CRW-9/2012]

the arguments in support of the review petition mentioned in the judgment itself but no observation, on the contentions raised by the review petitioner, was made by this Court vide judgment dated 27.09.2011 and thus, this Court finds that the judgment of this Court is liable to be recalled and reviewed.

¶80

In the light of aforesaid discussions, the review petition is allowed and the judgment passed by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2011 is recalled. It is held that, as the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a license to drive Heavy Motor Vehicle at the time of accident while driving a Light Motor Vehicle, it cannot be said that he did not have a driving license to drive the vehicle at all, therefore, there was no breach of policy and the Insurance Company of offending vehicle is liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶81

The review petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶82

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶83

A. ARORA /-(Reserved)

Smt Pana and Ors. v. Meghraj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pana and Ors. v. Meghraj 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

Iqbal Ali Vs Muzahid

Manak Chand Gupta Vs M/S Tirupati Plastomatics Pvt.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Nargis Siddiqui and Ors.

Smt Rajput Gayatri Devi and Others Vs Radhey Shyam and Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajput Gayatri Devi and Others

Upendra Upadhyay Vs Hari Shankar Mishra and Ors.