CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 574 of 2008 PETITIONER: National Insurance Company Ltd. RESPONDENT: Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/2008 BENCH: S.B. SINHA & H.S. BEDI JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21632/2003]
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant National Insurance Company is before us, aggrieved by
and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2003, passed by
a learned Single Judge of the Karnaraka High Court in M.F.A. No.
7788/2002 dismissing the appeal preferred against an award dated 17.9.2002
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short) in
M.V.C No.124/2000.
3. The fact of the matter relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
appeal is as under :
The vehicle involved in the accident was a Matador Van bearing
registration No. KA-23/2890. It had a Goods Carriage permit granted in
terms of Form No.7 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was insured with the
appellant. The said vehicle met with an accident on 9.12.1999 causing death
of one Gangawwa wife of the respondent No.1 herein. A contention was
raised on behalf of the appellant that the driver of the said vehicle did not
possess an effective licence to drive a transport vehicle.
4. An issue (being Issue No.3), inter alia, was framed in that behalf
before the Tribunal, which reads as under:
Whether the R-3 proves that driver of offending
vehicle was not an authorised person to drive the
same?
5. The learned Tribunal in support of its award on Issue No.3, held:
DW-1 in this cross examination admitted that
offending vehicle is authorised to transport 3500
kgs. goods. Further, in this cross-examination
stated that LMV means transport vehicle which
unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kgs. Ex.D-2
at Column No.12 clearly shows that the unladen
weight of the offending vehicle is 3500 kgs.
Thereby it is very much clear that said unladen
weight of the offending vehicle is much less than
7500 kgs. as admitted by DW-1 in his cross-
examination which is also the effect as defined in
the MV Act. So when the unladen weight of the
offending vehicle is less than 7500 kgs. the RW-1
driver who is having DL as per Ex.D-3 is certainly
authorised to drive the offending vehicle. The
decision relied upon by Adv. for petitioners at
serial No.2 ruling reported in 2000(5) KLJ 473
(DB) or own Hon’ble High Court had clearly held
that where offending vehicle is weighing 4960 kgs.
driven by a person having DL to drive the LMV,
there is breach of issuance policy, as statute
classifies vehicle weighing below 7500 kgs. as
LMVs and Insurer is liable to satisfy award in
respect of accident that occurred when the vehicle
was being driven by driver holding such licence.
So in view of the decision of Division Bench of
our own Hon’ble High Court and also the decision
of Supreme Court referred at Sl. No.1 Adv. for
petitioners it is very much clear that RW1 is
having valid DL as per Exh.D3 and the offending
vehicle unladen weight is 3500 kgs. is certainly
was having effective and valid DL and so R3 has
failed to prove the issue No.3 and accordingly I
answer the same in the negative.
6. The High Court on an appeal preferred by the appellant herein
opined :
Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company,
questioning the liability, contended that the driver
did not possess a valid licence to drive LMV.
According to the respondents, the driver had
driving licence to drive LMV, a transport vehicle.
According to the appellant, the vehicle in question
involved in the accident is a transport vehicle. The
said contention cannot be accepted by this Court,
in view of the fact that claimants are third parties
even on the ground that there is violation of terms
and conditions of policy, the insurance company
cannot be permitted to contend that it has no
liability. Accordingly, I do not see any merit in this
appeal.
7. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in
passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into
consideration that a light motor vehicle cannot be a transport vehicle
within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. It was submitted that for the
purpose of grant of licence for driving a vehicle, an application has to be
filed in Form No.4, whereafter only a licence is granted in Form No.6.
Learned counsel contended that the said forms have been prescribed in terms
of Rules 14 and 16 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and on a
perusal thereof as also the aforementioned Forms, it would be clear that a
light motor vehicle does not answer the description of a transport vehicle.
8. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the contention raised herein
by the appellant has neither been raised before the Tribunal nor before the
High Court. In any event, it was urged, that keeping in view the definition of
the light motor vehicle as contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor vehicles
Act, 1988 (Act for short), a light goods carriage would come within the
purview thereof.
A light goods carriage having not been defined in the Act, the
definition of the light motor vehicle clearly indicates that it takes within its
umbrage, both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle.
Strong reliance has been placed in this behalf by the learned counsel
in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [1999
(6) SCC 620].
9. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was enacted to consolidate
and amend the law relating to motor vehicles, is a complete code.
10. Section 2 of the Act provides for interpretation of the terms
contained herein. It employs the words unless the context otherwise
requires. Section 2(16) of the Act defines heavy goods vehicle to mean
any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-
roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms.
11. Section 2(21) defines light motor vehicle and Section 2(23)
defines medium goods vehicle as under:
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
7500 kilograms.
Medium goods vehicle means any goods carriage
other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods
vehicle.
Section 3 of the Act is in the following terms:
3. Necessity for driving licence.- (1) No person
shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place
unless he holds an effective driving licence issued
to him authorising 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 licence
specifically entitles him so to do.
12. The Central Government has framed Rules known as The Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
13. The word Form has been defined in Rule 2(e) to mean a Form
appended to the rules.
I Apply for a licence to enable me to drive
vehicles of the following description:
(d) Light motor vehicle
(e) Medium goods vehicle
(g) Heavy goods vehicle
(j) Motor vehicles of the following
description:….
After amendment the relevant portion of Form 4 reads as under:
I Apply for a licence to enable me to drive
vehicles of the following description:
(d) Light motor vehicle
(e) Transport vehicle
(j) Motor vehicles of the following
description:….
14. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4, for a
licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of
vehicles.
Clause (e) provides for Transport vehicle which has been
substituted by G.S.R. 221(E) with effect from 28.3.2001. Before the
amendment in 2001, the entries medium good vehicle and heavy goods
vehicle existed which have been substituted by transport vehicle. As
noticed hereinbefore, Light Motor Vehicles also found place therein.
15. Light Motor Vehicle is defined in Section 2(21) and, therefore, in
view of the provision, as then existed, it included a light transport vehicle.
Form 6 provides for the manner in which the licence is to be granted, the
relevant portion whereof read as under:
Authorisation to drive transport vehicle
Number………………. Date……..
Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect
from……. Badge number ………
Signature………………….
………………………….
Designation of the licensing
authority
Name and designation of their
authority who conducted the
driving test.
16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that
transport vehicle has now been substituted for ‘medium goods vehicle’ and
‘heavy goods vehicle’. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant
point of time, to cover both, light passenger carriage vehicle and light
goods carriage vehicle.
A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle,
therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.
17. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective
operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be
said to be invalid in law.
18. For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in this appeal and it
is dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand only).