AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Being aggrieved with the award dated 6.1.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 52/99 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, the Insurer has filed this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.]
The facts, briefly stated, are as under:
Respondent No. 1/claimant filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 21,26,000/- for the death of her husband Shivadas Mahant in the motor accident on 8.12.98 when he was dashed by the offending truck bearing registration No. CPS 8555 on account of rash and negligent driving of the said truck by its driver.
The driver remained ex-parte.
The owner denied the claim and took the plea that the vehicle was insured, therefore, the insurance company would be liable to pay compensation, if any.
The appellant/insurer took the plea that respondent No. 2/driver of the vehicle was having no valid driving license to drive the heavy goods vehicle on the date of the accident, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.
The learned Claims Tribunal held and directed that the owner, driver and the insurer were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 4,52,464/- to the wife of the deceased on account of death of the deceased in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization.
Mr. A.K. Athaley, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the Tribunal erred in law in holding vide Para-10 of the award that even if the endorsement for driving heavy goods vehicle (HGV) was not renewed/extended after 16.3.95, the insurance company would still be liable to pay compensation for the accident which took place on 8.12.98. He argued that, in fact, on 8.12.98 i.e. on the date of the accident, the driver was having no valid and effective driving license to drive a heavy goods vehicle (HGV).
On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Baeg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, opposed these arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. He argued that the endorsement made on 2.9.93 was co-terminus with the period of expiry of the original license granted for driving light motor vehicle and was valid till 2011.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case.
It is an admitted position in this case that initially the driver was granted a driving license for driving the light motor vehicle (LMV) on 17.3.92 by licensing authority, R.T.O., Bilaspur (M.P.) and it was effective and valid till 2011 (Ex.-D/2). Thereafter the endorsement for driving the heavy goods vehicle was made in this license on 2.9.93 by the District Transport Officer (D.T.O.), Bhagalpur and it was valid upto 16.3.95 (Ex.-D/4).
In the definition clause i.e. in Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, different categories of Motor Vehicles have been defined. Section 2(14) defines "goods carriage", Section 2(16) defines "heavy goods vehicle, Section 2(17) defines "heavy passenger motor vehicle" and Section 2(21) defines "light motor vehicle". Chapter II of the Act deals with licensing of drivers of motor vehicle. Section 3 provides for the necessity for driving license. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 says that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motorcab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do. Section 9 provides for grant of driving license and Section 10 very specifically provides for form and contents of licenses to drive. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 provides that every learner''s license and driving license, except a driving license issued u/s 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Sub-section (2) further provides that a learner''s license or, as the case may be, driving license shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:
(a) motor cycle without gear;
(b) motor cycle with gear;
(c) invalid carriage;
(d) light motor vehicle;
(e) transport vehicle;
(i) road-roller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.
The Supreme Court taking note of the above legal provisions held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol and Ors. 2009 AIR SCW 2747 that the distinction between a ''light motor vehicle'' and a ''transport vehicle'' is, therefore, evident from the above provisions. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct license 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 license to drive a ''transport vehicle'' whereas in case of any other license, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years.
The provisions of Section 14 are as follows:
Currency of licenses to drive motor vehicles. (1) A learner''s license issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the license.
(2) A driving license issued or renewed under this Act shall,
(a) in case of a license to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: Provided that in the case of license to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and
(b) in the case of any other license,-
(i) if the person obtaining the license, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,-
(A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or
(B) until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier;
(ii) if the person referred to in Sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal:
Provided that every driving license shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.
Therefore, the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for a legal obligation on the licensing authority for issuing or renewing a driving license for driving a transport vehicle for a period of three years only and that has to be followed in principle. In the present case as we have stated supra, the driver was granted driving license for driving the light motor vehicle on 17.3.92 which was valid upto 2011 and thereafter an endorsement was made by the concerned transport authority authorizing the driver to drive heavy goods vehicle w.e.f. 2.9.93 which was valid upto 16.3.95. This appears to be in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 14. We further note that the word transport vehicle in Sub-clause (e) in Section 10 has been substituted for Sub-clause (e) to (h) by Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Prior to their substitution, Sub-clause (e) to (h) read as under:
(e) medium goods vehicle;
(f) medium passenger motor vehicle;
(g) heavy goods vehicle;
(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle.
There is no evidence that after 16.3.95 the aforesaid endorsement was further extended/renewed by the concerned authority to further authorize the driver to drive the heavy goods vehicle. This shows that the driver was having no valid or effective license authorizing him to drive heavy goods vehicle on the date of accident i.e. 8.12.98.
In view of the above provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act particularly in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 14, it cannot be held that even without the further authorization after three years, the driver was entitled to drive heavy goods vehicle and the endorsement made on 2.9.93 was co-terminus with the life of the original license granted to the driver on 17.3.92 for driving the light motor vehicle (LMV). The embargo of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 requires further authorization/extension which was not done in this case. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the driver was not holding a valid driving license to drive a heavy goods vehicle (HGV) on the date of the accident and such an incident was a breach of insurance policy issued by the appellant to indemnify the liability of the owner/insured in case of an accident.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed.
The impugned award passed against the appellant/Insurance Company is set aside. The Insurance Company is exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured. The driver and owner i.e. respondents 2 & 3 shall be jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.
There shall be no order as to cost.