AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
The genesis of these appeals lie in an accident that occurred on 01.07.2011. The accident involved two vehicles, i.e. a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HP19 5864, driven by one Sh. Kashmir Singh and a Tata Safari bearing registration No.CH-03-L-2010 driven by one Sh. Kuldip Singh. In the said accident, some of the occupants of Tata Sumo suffered injuries, whereas some occupants died. The present bunch of appeals pertains to claim petitions filed by those occupants of Tata Sumo, who had suffered injuries in the accident. Involving overlapping facts and identical question of law, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication.
Facts:-
2(i). In FAO No.4213 of 2013, claimant is Smt. Usha Rani W/o Sh. Kashmir Singh, impleaded in the appeal as respondent No.1. On account of the injuries suffered by her, she preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘Act’). Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Tribunal’) passed an award on 30.05.2013, holding her entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
2(ii). In FAO No.170 of 2014, claimant is Smt. Shanti Devi alias Shalu Thakur D/o Sh. Kashmir Singh, impleaded in the appeal as respondent No.1. On account of the injuries suffered by her, she preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. Learned Tribunal passed an award on 30.05.2013, holding her entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
2(iii). In FAO No.171 of 2014, claimant is Smt. Veena W/o late Sh. Onkar Singh, impleaded in the appeal as respondent No.1. On account of the injuries suffered by her, she preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. Learned Tribunal passed an award on 30.05.2013, holding her entitled to a total compensation of Rs.46,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the Tata Safari vehicle was being driven by Sh. Kuldip Singh, impleaded as respondent No.2 in all these appeals and respondent No.1 in all the claim petitions. The Insurer of Tata Safari vehicle had raised an issue before the learned Tribunal that respondent No.2-Sh. Kuldip Singh was not holding any valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question. Following issue was framed in this regard in all three claim petitions:-
“3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive vehicle No.CH-03-L-2010 at the time of accident? OPR3”
Learned Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings, evidents and contentions, decided the issue against the Insurer and in favour of the claimants. Aggrieved against the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on the aforesaid issue, the Insurer has preferred these appeals.
Contentions:-
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer contended that respondent No.2-Sh. Kuldip Singh held a driving license only for Light Motor Vehicles. The vehicle driven by him at the time of accident was Tata Safari, a transport vehicle. Kuldip Singh was not authorized to drive transport vehicle. The vehicle was being driven in violation of the insurance policy, therefore, the Insurer is not liable to satisfy the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the claimants invited attention to the provisions of the Act, in particular Section 2(21) thereof and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2017) 14 SCC 663, titled Mukund Dewangan Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and (2019) 12 SCC 248, titled M.S. Bhati Versus National Insurance Company Limited, to repel the arguments advanced by the appellant. It was contended that total unladen weight of the Tata Safari vehicle was below 7500 kg, therefore, the vehicle in question was covered in terms of the definition of “Light Motor Vehicle” under Section 2(21) of the Act.
Observations:-
Upon hearing the submissions advanced by both sides and after considering the material available on record, I am of the considered view that the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant in these appeals deserve to be rejected. This is on account of following reasons: -
5(i). It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question, which caused the accident was Tata Safari, bearing No.CH-03-L-2010. The vehicle was being driven by its owner Sh. Kuldip Singh. Kuldip Singh had a driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicles. Authenticity of this driving license is not in dispute per-se. This license was valid from 20.01.2009 to 19.01.2029. The accident in question had taken place on 01.07.2011, i.e. during the currency of the license.
5(ii). In the screening report, the class of the vehicle in question was shown as LMV(T), i.e. Light Motor Vehicle (Transport). Section 2(21) of the Act defines Light Motor Vehicle as under:-
“2(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500] kilograms.”
5(iii). A larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 633, had resolved the issue as to whether a Driver, who had a license to drive a light motor vehicle, could drive a transport vehicle of that class or he was required to obtain an additional endorsement to drive the transport vehicle, with the following conclusions:-
“60.1. “Light motor vehicle” as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with Section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.
60.2 A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and 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. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.
3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in Section 10(2)(e), “medium passenger motor vehicle” in Section 10(2)(f), “heavy goods vehicle” in Section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in Section 10(2)(h) with expression “transport vehicle” as substituted in Section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of Section 10(2)(d) and Section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.”
Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held in the aforesaid judgment that that Light Motor Vehicle as defined in Section 2(21) would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer contended that the decision rendered by the Larger Bench in Mukund Dewangan’s case, supra, has been referred for reconsideration in Bajaj Alliance (sic Allianz) General Insurance Company Limited Versus Rambha Devi and others, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon Mukund Dewangan’s case to hold that a transport vehicle whose unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kg, would be included in the definition of Light Motor Vehicle in terms of Section 2(21) of the Act.
The above contention has already been considered and turned down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2019) 12 SCC 248, titled M.S. Bhati Versus National Insurance Company Limited. Hon’ble Apex Court held that the decision, which continues to hold the field as on date, has to be followed as a matter of judicial discipline. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard are as under:-
“11. The law which has been laid down by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan binds this Court. As a matter of judicial discipline, we are duty-bound to follow that decision which continues to hold the field.”
Hon’ble Apex Court in M.S. Bhati’s case also reiterated the interpretation of Section 2(21) of the Act as given in Mukund Dewangan’s case, supra, in the following terms:-
“15. Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the expression “light motor vehicle” as follows:
“2.(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or roadroller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms;”
The above provision has been interpreted by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan. The conclusions have been extracted earlier. It is not disputed by the insurer in the course of these proceedings that the gross weight of the vehicle was in conformity with Section 2(21).”
Since the gross weight of the vehicle in question in terms of the registration certificate was 1920 kg, i.e. below the cut-off limit of 7500 kg set down in Section 2(21) of the Act, therefore, the conclusion is that the driving license of Sh. Kuldip Singh authorised him to drive the vehicle in question.
No other issue was urged.
For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no error in the finding of learned Tribunal that Sh. Kuldip Singh was holding an effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question. The instant appeals are, therefore, dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.