High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 05 DEL CK 0251

DEVINDER KUMAR KUKREJA vs NUFRA KHATOON & ORS

Delhi High Court · Decided on 18 May 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
JAYANT NATH
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
MAC.APP. 711 OF 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

41 paragraphs · 883 words

JAYANT NATH, J.

R.P.14/2015 in MAC.APP.711/2010

1.

This Revision Petition is filed under Order 47 read with section 114 and 151 CPC for recalling/review of order dated 23.9.2014. By the impugned

order dated 23.9.2014 this court had noted the brief facts, namely, that when the deceased was going on his motorcycle he was hit by the offending

vehicle driven by the respondent No.5 in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased fell down on the road and received fatal injuries. The Tribunal

awarded a compensation of Rs.6,01,176/-. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had himself stated that he had employed respondent No.5 for running

of the water tanker. The Tribunal also noted that respondent No.5 had a valid license for Light Motor Vehicle (non-transport). Hence, based on the

same, the Tribunal concluded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license and directed respondent No.6 to first pay the

compensation amount awarded and then have recovery rights.

2.

This court noted the contention of the appellant who had pleaded that as the respondent No.5 had a license to drive an LMV he was authorised to

drive the said tractor. This court rejected the said plea of the appellant holding that where a tractor is fitted with a trolley and is used for commercial

purpose then merely because respondent No.5 was having a driving license for an LMV would not make him eligible to drive a transport vehicle based

on the same license. Â

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangn vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

AIR 2017 SC 3668 to contend that the order of the Court suffers an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the above conclusion. The

Supreme Court in the above case held as follows:-

“14. The definition of light motor vehicle' makes it clear that for a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a

motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kgs. 'Gross vehicle weight' has been defined in Section

2(15). The motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as defined in Section 2(48) of the Act,

are also the light motor vehicle. No change has been made by Amendment Act of 54/94 in the provisions contained in Sections 2(21) and 10(2)(d)

relating to the light motor vehicle. The definition of light motor vehicle' has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with Section 10(2)(d) which

makes it abundantly clear that 'light motor vehicle' is also a 'transport vehicle', the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does not exceed

7500 kgs. as specified in the provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus

or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as specified in Section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of Section

3 of the Act requires that a person in order to drive a 'transport vehicle' must have authorization. Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle,

it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor, the

unladen weight of which, as the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg. The insertion of transport vehicle' category in Section 10(2)(e) has no effect

of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of the class of light motor vehicle. A distinction is made in the Act of heavy goods

vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on the basis of 'gross vehicle weight' or 'unladen

weight' for heavy passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, the weight, as the case may be, exceed 12000 kg. Medium goods vehicle shall mean

any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle; whereas 'medium passenger motor vehicle' means any public service

vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a motorcycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor

vehicle.â€​

 4. Hence, the Supreme Court held that a driver who was issued a license as per class of vehicle, namely, had a license to drive Light Motor Vehicle

it would also mean authorisation to drive the transport vehicle or omnibus etc. including tractor , the gross vehicle weight or a motor car or tractor or

roadroller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kg.

5.

In view of the above, in the present case respondent No.5 had a driving license to drive an LMV and was authorised to drive a tractor trolley. The

judgment of this court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.

6.

Respondent No.6 has been served but none has appeared for respondent No.6.

7.

I hence modify the order dated 23.9.2014. The recovery rights which were given to respondent No.6 by the impugned order are set aside.

8.

Revision Petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.