New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Devkaran and Others

B.R. Dube, J.—The non-Applicants Nos. 1 and 2 had filed an application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act to claim compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000/- on account of the death of Nathuram by an accident on 12.5.72 by truck No. MPL-81, which was owned by non-Applicant No. 3 and driven by non-Applicant No. 4. As the truck was insured with the Applicant New India Assurance Co. Ltd., it was also made non-Applicant No. 3 in the claims case. The Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by non-Applicant and that on account of that accident Nathuram died. The Claims Tribunal also held that non-Applicants Nos. 1 and 2, the legal representatives of deceased Nathuram were entitled to claim Rs. 1,200/- by way of compensation.

The defence of the Applicant was that the non-Applicant No. 4 had no valid licence to drive the vehicle and hence under the insurance policy it was not liable to pay any amount to the claimants. The Claims Tribunal held that non-Applicant No. 4 had a valid licence. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,200/- byway of compensation was awarded to the non-Applicants Nos. 1 and 2 as payable by the Applicant and non-Applicants Nos. 3 and 4 jointly and severally with the direction that the Applicant shall indemnify the insured non-Applicant No. 3, Girdharilal. Against the said award the Applicant has come to this Court in revision.

I have heard the learned Counsel from both the sides and perused the record. The non-Applicant No. 4 had no licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle at the time of the accident. It is not disputed that he had a licence to drive only a light motor vehicle at the relevant time. It has come in the evidence that the vehicle which the non-Applicant No. 4 was driving and with which the accident had taken place had the registered laden weight of 8,390 kilograms. According to Section 2(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, "heavy-motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the registered laden weight of which, exceeds 11,000 kilograms. As the truck in the instant case was below 11,000 kilograms in laden weight the Claims Tribunal held that it was not a heavy vehicle and on that basis it gave the finding that the non-Applicant No. 4 had a valid licence. It may be pointed out that the non-Applicant No. 4 possessed a licence to drive light motor vehicle which according to Section 2(13) means a transport vehicle or omnibus the registered laden weight of which does not exceed 4,000 kilogram. As the truck in question was exceeding 4,000 kilograms in laden weight, it was not a light motor vehicle. Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines medium motor vehicle to be one which is neither a light motor vehicle nor a heavy motor vehicle. It is thus clear from the evidence on record that the non-Applicant No 4 was driving a medium motor vehicle. It is not his defence that he had a licence to drive such a vehicle. His case was that he had on that day a driving licence for driving light motor vehicle only. Even at the time of the argument before this Court it is not suggested by the learned Counsel for non-Applicants Nos. 3 and 4 that non-Applicant No. 4 had a licence for driving medium motor-vehicle.

From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that non-Applicant No. 4 was driving the motor vehicle without any valid licence and hence the Applicant under the Insurance Policy was not liable to indemnify the insured for the compensation which he will be required to pay under the award to non-Applicants Nos. 1 and 2. For that reason the Claims Tribunal could not have awarded any compensation to non-Applicants 1 and 2 as payable by the Applicant. As the finding of the Claims Tribunal with respect to the liability of the Applicant to pay compensation is based on no evidence, it must be set aside in revision.

For the above reasons this revision is allowed and the award with respect to the payment of compensation of Rs 1,200/- made against the Applicant is hereby set aside. It is, however, confirmed against the non-Applicants Nos. 3 and 4. Looking to the facts of the case, parties to bear their own costs as incurred.