AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—The Insurance company has filed this appeal to set aside the impugned award as it relates to the liability fastened on the Insurance company inter alia contending that the driver of tractor-trailer did not possess valid and effective driving licence. The tractor-trailer was being used for purposes other than agriculture. I have heard the learned counsel for parties.
In a decision reported in Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2001) ACJ 1441 : (2001) 6 AD 407 : AIR 2001 SC 3356 : (2001) 106 CompCas 732 : (2001) 6 JT 482 : (2001) 5 SCALE 322 : (2001) 8 SCC 56 : (2001) AIRSCW 3099 : (2001) AIRSCW 2447 : (2001) AIRSCW 2539 : (2001) 6 Supreme 171 , the Supreme Court has held:--
"10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under Section 10 a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. S.C., Sharda is to be accepted then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle".
In the case on hand, the driver had licence to drive the tractor-trailer. The evidence on record does not disclose at the time of accident, tractor-trailer was being used for transportation of goods. Above all, the claimant was a third party. Therefore, the contention of Insurance company that driver of tractor-trailer did not have valid and effective driving licence cannot be accepted.
The Insurance company has not adduced evidence to show that tractor-trailer was used for purpose other than agriculture. This defence cannot be raised by the Insurance company to avoid third party claim. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention raised by Insurance company.
The learned counsel for claimant has sought for enhancement of compensation. The claimant has not filed appeal or cross-objection for enhancement of compensation. In the circumstances, the plea for enhancement of compensation cannot be accepted. The appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited by the Insurance company shall be transferred to the Tribunal.