AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard.
The present appeal is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle assailing thereby the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, in MACP No.37/2011 whereby learned Tribunal has hold responsible the owner of vehicle to pay the compensation and permitted the Insurance Company to pay and recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.
In the present matter, it is undisputed fact that the deceased was travelling by tractor and trolley loaded with paddy bags, due to negligent driving, the vehicle was turned turtle. At that time, the deceased, who was sitting on the paddy bags in trolly has fell down and succumbed to his injuries.
In the background of above said accident, the legal representatives of the deceased has filed petition before the Claim Tribunal. In the said claim petition, the owner as well as the Insurance Company were made party. Applicant by stating the monthly income of deceased Rs.4000/- per month, claimed total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
The appellant has specifically stated that deceased was working as a Labourer with respondent No.1, who is the owner of the tractor. It is also not disputed that the accident occurred during the travelling, while the deceased was sitting on a paddy bags and fell down during the course of travelling from the tractor and trolley. It is also not disputed that the owner of the vehicle did not enter into the witness box to dispute the factual aspect. As such, occurrence of accident, deceased was doing labour work and validity of Insurance Policy is not disputed in the matter.
Respondent No.2- Insurance Company came with a submission that there is a breach of policy on the part of the driver of the vehicle as he was not possessing a valid licence to run the tractor and trolley. According to the Insurance Company, he was holding the licence of light motor vehicle of non-transport vehicle and, therefore, he was not permitted to drive the tractor. According to them, on this count, the Insurance Company is not responsible to pay the compensation.
The perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal shows that the learned Tribunal relying upon the submission of the Insurance Company and by holding that the driver of the tractor and trolly was holding the licence of light motor vehicle non-transport, not qualified to drive tractor-trolly which was transport vehicle and same amounts to breach of Insurance Policy and, thereby, the Insurance Company was exonerated from the payment of compensation. Learned Tribunal passed the order of pay and recover in the matter.
The owner of the vehicle, who challenged the judgment and order before this Court has came with a specific submission that the law is now well settled on the point that driver, who was possessing licence of light motor vehicle can drive the transport vehicle also. In this regard he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi & Ors., reported in MANU/SC/1178/2024, whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has drawn conclusion as under:
“Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:-
(I)A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross Page 125 of 126 vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
(II)The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
(III)The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’.
(IV)The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.”
Learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has raised strong objection to the present appeal by stating that the tractor was accompanied by trolley and, therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that when the trolley is attached to the tractor, then same does not come under the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse in the matter.
In light of the submission of both the parties, it will be useful to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others reported in (2001)8 SCC 56 particularly in para 10 of the judgment:
“10.We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under Section 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr S.C. Sharda is to be accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle.”
In view of this law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that merely because trailer/trolley is added either to a tractor or a motor vehicle by itself does not make the tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle and, thereby, it is hold that the person who is otherwise having any valid driving license cannot be held that there is breach of policy of insured vehicle.
In my view, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court India in case of Nagashetty covered the issue involved in the present matter.
I am of the opinion that the observation of the learned Tribunal to the extent that there was a breach of policy on the ground that the driver of the tractor was having a light motor vehicle non-transport cannot drive the tractor and trolley are incorrect and same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned order needs interference in the matter. Hence I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
ii) It is held that driver of Tractor-Trolly was holding valid and effective licence and thereby exonerating Insurance Company from the responsibility to pay compensation is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, direction issued in the impugned judgment and order dated 08.04.2015 from 4A to 4D are also quashed and set aside.
iii) Insurance Company has already paid the compensation order dated amount to the claimants and, therefore, the present appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- deposited before this Court along with interest accrued thereupon.
iv) Rest of the judgment of awarding interest on compensation amount, appointment of compensation amount between legal heirs, deposit of certain amount is hereby confirmed.
The First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to the costs.