AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Subbiah, J.—This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the finding rendered by the Tribunal in directing them to pay the
compensation amount to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Similarly, aggrieved over the finding, permitting the
Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle owner, second respondent herein has filed a cross objection
in Cross Objection No.14 of 2011. The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in the appeal are as follows:
It is the case of the first respondent/claimant that on 06.01.2005, the first respondent, who was a mechanic by an avocation, after repairing an
Auto, bearing Registration No.TN-74-C-7661, belonging to the second respondent, insured with the appellant Insurance Company, had taken the
said Auto on a trial from the work shop. The first respondent was sitting in the Auto and the second respondent owner/driver was driving the said
Auto from Valliyoor to Airvadi. While proceeding so, the driver of the Auto suddenly swerved and turned the Auto, in order to avoid hitting on a
cycle, which was coming from the opposite direction and as a result of which, the auto capsized and the victim who was travelling in the Auto
sustained injuries. Hence, he made a claim as against the owner of the Auto and its insurer, who are the second respondent and the appellant in this
appeal.
The case of the first respondent was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a counter, stating that the accident had occurred at the time
when the auto was taken for reliability trials. The Reliability trials or speed testing of any vehicle is not covered under the policy conditions. Since
the accident had occurred during the trial run of the auto, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. But the owner of
the vehicle, second respondent has filed a counter stating that at the time of the accident, the Auto was not on a reliability trial. Since the first
respondent/claimant wanted to carry out repair in a break down Auto at Valliyoor, he hired the Auto of the second respondent and while the
second respondent who is the owner of the Auto, took the first respondent in auto towards Valliyoor, to enable the first respondent to attend to a
repair in the break down auto, the accident had occurred. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that this accident had occurred, during the reliability
trial. Thus, he prays for the dismissal of the claim petition.
In order to prove the claim, on the side of the first respondent/claimant, he examined himself as P.W., besides examining one Doctor as P.W.2
and eleven documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, the Officer from the Insurance
Company was examined as R.W. 1 and the owner of the vehicle examined himself as R.W.2 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4.
The Tribunal after analysing the entire evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Auto, by its owner and the accident had not occurred during the reliability trial, as contended by the appellant/ Insurance
Company and after, having come to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation
amount and permitted them to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, for the reason that the driver of the Auto did not have a valid
endorsement on his license, to drive the transport vehicle. Hence, aggrieved over the finding rendered by the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed by
the Insurance Company and aggrieved over the permission granted to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner of the
vehicle, cross appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and I have perused the materials available on record.
It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident had occurred when the auto was taken for reliability trial and
hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. But, I find that the owner of the vehicle had adduced evidence before the
Tribunal as R.W.1 and he had stated in his evidence that at the time of the accident, he took the first respondent/claimant in his auto only to attend
a repair in a break down Auto at Valliyoor. The evidence of R.W.2, would show that the accident had not occurred as contended by the appellant
i.e. during the reliability trial. Therefore, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident had not occurred during the reliability trial and
thus, directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and permitted them to recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle, since there is no valid endorsement in the licence of the owner of the Auto authorising him to drive the transport vehicle.
It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the cross objector/vehicle owner that the vehicle involved in the accident is Auto and
there is no need to have a badge endorsement on the licence to drive the auto. Under such circumstances, the finding rendered by Tribunal,
directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle is not legally sustainable. In
this regard, the counsel for the second respondent/vehicle owner has relied upon a judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs
Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Others reported in 2008 (1) TN MAC 200 (SC) = 2008-2-L.W. 474. But the reading of the above judgment would
show that, in that case, the accident had taken place in the year 1999, before the notification issued by the Central Government with regard to the
classification of the vehicle. In fact, in the said judgment, a reference was also made with regard to the said notification. In the said judgment
paragraph Nos.12 to 15 reads as follows:
The Central Government has framed Rules known as The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
The word Form has been defined in Rule 2(e) to mean a Form appended to the rules.
(Form 4)
I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description:
(d) Light Motor vehicle
(e) Medium Goods vehicle
(g) Heavy Goods Vehicle
(j) Motor vehicles of the following description
...........
After amendment the relevant portion of Form 4 reads as under:
I Apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description:
(d) Light Motor Vehicle
(e) Transport Vehicle
(j) Motor Vehicles of the following description...
Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4, for a licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of vehicles.
Clause (e) provides for Transport Vehicle which has been substituted by G.S.R. 221(E) with effect from 28.03.2001. Before the amendment in
2001, the entries Medicum Good Vehicle and Heavy Goods Vehicle existed which have been substituted by ""Transport Vehicle"". As noticed
hereinbefore, ""Light Motor Vehicles"" also found place therein.
""Light Motor Vehicle"" is defined in Section 2(21) and, therefore, in view of the provision, as then existed, it included a Light Transport Vehicle.
Form 6 provides for the manner in which the licence is to be granted, the relevant portion whereof read as under:
Authorisation to drive transport vehicle Number..........
Date..........
Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect from..........
Badge number..........
Signature....................
Designation of the Licensing Authority
Name and designation of their authority who conducted the driving test.
The reading of the above judgment would show that after 28.03.2001, Medium Goods Vehicle and Heavy Goods vehicle are clubbed together
and substituted by a word ""Transport Vehicle"". Therefore, for driving the Transport vehicle badge endorsement is necessary. So far as, the present
case is concerned, the accident took place on 06.01.2005, i.e., subsequent to the notification. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the counsel
for the Cross Objector/vehicle owner cannot be applicable to the facts of this case. On the other hand, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for
the appellant in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & Ors. reported in 2009 SC 2151 : 2009-2-L.W. 676fairly applicable to
the facts of the case. The relevant passage from the said judgment is as follows.
The distinction between a ''light motor vehicle'' and a ''transport vehicle'' is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle
but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a ''transport vehicle'' and a ''passenger
vehicle'' can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of
an effective licence to drive a ''transport vehicle'' whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years.
The reading of the above judgment would show that a transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but, for the purpose of driving the same, a
distinct licence is required to be obtained. In the instant case, the vehicle involved is Auto, which is a commercial vehicle. For the purpose of
driving the said vehicle, badge endorsement is necessary on the licence. Since no endorsement was obtained, the Tribunal had directed the
Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. I do not find any infirmity in the said finding.
Hence, in view of the same, confirming the finding rendered by the Tribunal, the civil miscellaneous appeal and the cross objection is dismissed.
The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with the proportionate interest within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of this order copy and the Insurance Company is permitted to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by initiating
appropriate proceedings. On such deposit, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with the proportionate
interest. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal and the cross objection are disposed of. No costs.