Reliance General Ins Co Ltd vs Hirkiben Rameshbhai Ratoda

Gita Gopi, J

This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arising out of the judgment and award dated 20.12.2019 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Panchmahals at Halol (the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 2429 of 2017 (Old No. 929 of 2014) (claim petition), whereby, the Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs.9,01,142/- with proportionate costs and 9% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till realization against the total compensation of Rs.15 lakh as claimed by the original claimants towards the death of the deceased. Accordingly, the appellant - insurance company has preferred this appeal primarily on the ground that the driver of the insured Jeep was not holding licence to drive the transport vehicle which amounts to breach of conditions of the insurance policy as well as under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), while another ground which has been raised is of passenger being carried beyond sitting capacity.

Facts of the case, as observed by the learned Tribunal, are that the deceased along with both the claimants were returning from Machi to Pavagadh in a Cruiser Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-18-W-3815 and as the opponent No. 1 in the claim petition – drove the Jeep in rash and negligent manner in excessive and uncontrollable speed, while passing near Bodhia gate on Pavagadh – Machi road, the driver lost control over it and it turned turtle on the roadside.

Consequently, all the three sustained grievous injuries and Rameshbhai Motibhai Ratoda succumbed to the injuries during medical treatment.

Heard, learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat for the appellant - insurance company.

3.1 The Court, while hearing the appeal at admission stage, invited for the relevant documents from the learned advocate for the appellant, who made available the same for perusal of the Court and accordingly, the Court proceeded with the appeal.

3.2 A plea has been raised regarding passengers who travelled in the Jeep were beyond sitting capacity while, no such evidence was given by the officer who was examined on behalf of the insurance company at exh. 37 and thus, merely, raising the ground without leading evidence, such plea cannot be appreciated nor can have any countenance by this Court as the ground raised has not been substantiated by any evidence by the insurance company. Further, in cross-examination, the officer of the insurance company has affirmed that the risk of the passengers in the Jeep was covered by the insurance policy.

3.3 The second ground which has been raised is about valid Driving Licence, to drive the transport vehicle by the driver. The RC Book of the vehicle was produced at exh. 21 during the trial and the extract of Driving Licence of the driver of the said Cruiser Jeep No. GJ-18-W-3815 was at exh. 25 / 34 / 39. The driver was Kalyansinh Amarsinh Solanki and the owner of the vehicle is Vijaysinh Fatesinh Parmar. The licence of the driver shows the validity period to drive the Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) as 08.06.1997 to 07.08.2017 which covers the date of accident i.e. 24.08.2014. The RTO officer namely Dilip Waghjibhai Patel was examined as witness No. 1 for the insurance company, wherein, he had referred to the licence of driver - Kalyansinh Amarsinh Solanki. While referring to the endorsement authorizing him to drive various vehicles, it was stated by the RTO officer about the validity of the licence up to 07.08.2017 of the LMV. In the cross-examination, the said witness affirms that for the vehicle which bears the weight of 7500 kg., it would fall under the category of LMV and the RC Book of the vehicle gives the brief description of the vehicle as LMV.

Considering the ratio laid in the decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663, the said ground raised of not having the valid Driving Licence is not sustainable as it was held in the said decision that, “Light Motor Vehicle” would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) r/w. Section 2(15 and 2(48). A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a Light Motor Vehicle and also motor car or tractor, or roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg.” and further it was held that, “the holder of a Driving Licence to drive class of “Light Motor Vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg.” Thus, in view of the proposition of law as laid down in Mukund Dewangan’s case, here, in his case, the driver was holding licence to drive LMV on the date of accident and as the RC Book reflects that it was an LMV vehicle, this Court does not find any reason to entertain this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.

4.1 In view of the main appeal is dismissed, civil application therein, also stands dismissed.