AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”), is maintained by the appellant, against the award dated 29.04.2013, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal below”) in MAC Petition No. 68-MAC/2 of 2010.
The brief facts of the case are that on 17.03.2007 at around 5:15 P.M., while Shankar Puri (since deceased) was walking on the road near Kalisthan Temple, Nahan, respondent No. 1 (owner and driver of the vehicle in question) suddenly started reversing his jeep bearing registration No. HP-18B-0458 in a high speed and hit the jeep against Shankar Puri, as a result of which, he sustained multiple injuries. After the accident, Shankar Puri was shifted to Regional Hospital, Nahan from where, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he was diagnosed a case for fracture 1-3-4 vertebra, dislocation and paraplegia, due to which, his lower portion of the body became un-functional. After being treated, he was discharged from PGI and referred back to Regional Hospital, Nahan, from where he was discharged on 17.08.2009 and was taken to his native place Nepal, where he succumbed to the injuries on 29.11.2009. According to the petitioners, the deceased died on account of rash and negligent on the part of respondent No. 1 and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lacs.
By filing reply, respondent No. 1 resisted and contested the claim petition and denied that the deceased had collided with his vehicle. It has been submitted by respondent No. 1 that he was a trained driver and was possessing a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It has been further submitted that the vehicle was fully insured with respondent No. 2 and in case of any compensation, the same is liable to be recovered from respondent No. 2.
In reply filed by respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, it has been stated that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the term and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It has also been stated that the petition has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with respondent No. 1.
On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 25.08.2011:-
“1.Whether Shankar Puri @ Sagune Puri died on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Bolero Camper Jeep No. HP-18B-0458 by respondent No. 1 Atin Bansal on 13.08.2009, at about 5:15 PM, near Temple Kalisthan, Nahan, as alleged? OPP
2.In case issue No. 1 is determined in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP.
3.Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR-2
4.Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No. 1, as alleged? OPR-2
5.Relief.”
After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed with costs and the petitioners were held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its payment, to be made by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 being insurer was directed to satisfy the award and thereafter to recover the award amount from respondent No. 1.
Feeling dissatisfied, respondent No. 1 preferred the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Act for quashing and setting aside the impugned award.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal below had fallen into a grave error while returning the findings on issue No. 3 that driving licence of the appellant cannot be held to be a valid licence to drive the offending vehicle. He further contended that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was being driven by a driver having licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle and he could have driven the vehicle in question being a light transport vehicle also as no additional authorization is required to drive a light transport vehicle, therefore, the learned Tribunal below had wrongly fastened the liability on the appellant, as such, the appellant be exonerated from paying the amount of compensation to the petitioners.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 has contended that the learned Tribunal below has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 and carefully examined the entire record.
Now the question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of the accident, was having a valid and effective driving licence or not. The perusal of Registration Certificate Ext. RW-1/C, issued by RLA Nahan, shows that the class of the vehicle involved in the accident is light transport vehicle with gross vehicle weight of 2750 Kgs .The owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle has appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and tendered in evidence affidavit Ext. RW-1/A, copy of driving licence Ext. RW-1/B, Copy of Registration Certificate Ext. RW-1/C and copy of Insurance Policy Ext. RW-1/D. The perusal of driving licence, Ext. RW-1/B shows that it has been issued in the name of Atin Bansal and it was valid to drive light motor vehicles (non-transport) w.e.f. 23.12.2003 to 22.12.2023.
The next question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the driver, who was having the driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle could have driven the Light Transport Vehicle. In Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi & others, (2025) 3 SCC 95, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:
“180.Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal-regardless of whether the vehicle falls into “Transport” or “Non-Transport” category, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7500 kg-the quintessential common man’s driver Sri, with LMV licence, can also drive a “transport vehicle”. We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this case has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that the LMV driving licence-holder, driving a “transport vehicle”, is a significant cause for road accidents in India. The additional eligibility criteria as specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will apply only to such vehicle (“medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy passenger vehicle”), whose gross weight exceeds 7500 kg. Our present interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers operating transport vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating “transport vehicles” (below 7500 kgs), with their LMV driving licence. Perforce Sri must drive responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will substantially address the vexed question of law before this Court. ... ... … … … ... ... ...
181.1A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a “transport vehicle” without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the “transport vehicle” class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
181.2The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a “transport vehicle”, does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.”
Thus, as per the principle enunciated in the case cited supra, a driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a “transport vehicle” without needing additional authorization to drive transport vehicle. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was a light transport vehicle, as gross weight of the offending vehicle involved in the accident was 2750 Kgs. At the time of accident, the vehicle in question was being driven by a driver having licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle. Since driver of the vehicle in question was admittedly having driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, in view of Rambha Devi’s case (supra), no additional authorization was required to drive a light transport vehicle. Hence, it cannot be said that at the time of accident, the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle as such the findings returned by the learned Tribunal below on issue No. 3 being erroneous are set aside.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant (Owner of the vehicle) is allowed and the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below is modified to the extent that appellant/owner shall be exonerated from paying the amount of compensation to the petitioners and the same shall be paid by the Insurance Company. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain the same.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.