AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By the medium of instant appeal, the legality of award passed on 19.06.2018 has been called in question. It appears from the perusal of record that on 19.06.2018, award was passed by the learned MACT in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 holding them entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 5.00 lacs. The stand of the present appellant had been that in view of invalid license held by the deceased at the time of accident, the liability could not be imposed upon the appellant. It is being contended that driving license of the deceased was not sufficient to allow him to drive the commercial vehicle of the nature referred in award. Another point canvassed by the appellant to negate liability was that on the date of accident route permit of the vehicle had not been valid as it had lapsed though it was later renewed.
Mr. Imtiyaz, learned counsel for the appellant while reiterating grounds stated that RW Mohammad Iqbal Dar, Jr. Assistant, ARTO, Ganderbal, had made it clear that deceased was not authorized to drive Tata Sumo vehicle. Furthermore, the deposition of RW Sharifa, Head Assistant RTO Office, Kashmir, has also sounded that on the date of occurrence the route permit of the vehicle in question was not renewed. It is being contended that the award is required to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submitted that both the questions have been properly addressed by the learned MACT and two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court have taken note of while returning findings against present appellant in this regard.
In first judgment titled Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company, Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011, the observations of their lordships appeared are as under:
In the reference, the main question involved is whether a driver who is having a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' and is driving 'transport vehicle' of that class is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle? There is a conflict in the plethora of decisions of this Court. In Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 620, S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (2013) 7 SCC 62, Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 56, the view taken by this Court was that when a driver is holding a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle', he is competent to drive a 'transport vehicle' of that category without specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle; whereas in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal(2008) 1 SCC 696, a view had been taken that before 2001 also, it was necessary for a driver possessing driving licence to drive light motor vehicle to obtain an endorsement to drive transport vehicle of that class; whereas in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesargi & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 464, a distinction was made in the legal position which existed before 28.3.2001 i.e. the date of amendment of the form and subsequent thereto. It was opined that before 28.3.2001 there was no necessity for the holder of a licence to drive light motor vehicle to obtain an endorsement to drive transport vehicle of that class. He could drive transport vehicle of Light Motor Vehicle category on the basis of holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 253 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 356, the view had been taken that a driver holding licence to drive light motor vehicle in order to drive 'transport vehicle' of that class has to obtain a specific endorsement on licence authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle.
The principle of law laid down of the aforementioned case accordingly is:
"The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of transport vehicle is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving license 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 license to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such clause without any endorsement to that effect."
Learned MACT has referred to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Amit Paul Singh v TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 2253 of 2018 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7692 of 2017, which has been relied by the appellant herein and observed that it had not application to the present matter as in the case referred, the offending vehicle is without route permit at the relevant time and so the owner had committed violation of provisions under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The plea of the respondent before the learned MACT is that the route permit of the offending vehicle was not renewed at the relevant time, but the learned MACT found that offending vehicle was having route permit and hence there is no violation of Section 66 of Motor Vehicle Act. The validity of the route permit was extended till 17.08.2014 against the receipt of Rs. 100/- by the concerned authority. The accident taken place on 09.10.2013.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The finding of learned MACT on these two points which have been re-agitated herein to hold the impugned award bad cannot be bracketed to be erroneous on any count. The learned MACT has properly appreciated the evidence and applied the law correctly. Thus, I am of the opinion that the award so passed is not liable to be set aside on any ground. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed.