M. Balasubramanya vs Pradyumna and Others

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—Petitioners in M.V.C. Nos. 106 and 108 of 1998 are awarded compensation by the Tribunal for personal injuries. Tribunal directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation. The owner is in appeal seeking for fastening of liability on the insurer. The petitioners are the rider and pillion-rider of the motor-cycle which collided with the ambassador car insured with the second respondent. It is the contention that the driver of the ambassador car had licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle but had no licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle - transport. For the said reason the Tribunal dismissed the claim against the insurer.

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for different qualifications and separate licences to drive different types of vehicles. The LMV is one such category. The LMV transport could be either LMV goods vehicle or LMV passenger vehicle. The skill of driving an ambassador car, whether it is LMV non-transport or transport would make very little difference in law insofar as pedestrians are concerned. May be for the safety of inmates while granting licence to drive LMV passenger transport the drive" may have to qualify some tests. But as far as third parties are concerned the skills of driving remains same. In that view, to make a distinction between the ambassador car (LMV non-transport) and ambassador car (LMV transport) is a flawed logic. Besides in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, the insurer cannot avoid liability. When a person is entitled to drive LMV vehicle he is entitled to drive other types of vehicles coming under the LMV category.

In that view, the appeal is allowed. The insurer is directed to pay the compensation. The amount in deposit to be refunded to the appellant.