JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals arising out of the same Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Solan in claim petition No. 79-S/2 of 1998 decided on 27.7.2002.
2. The facts relevant for the decision of the case are that the claimant Rajeev Verma was travelling on a scooter when he was hit by truck No. HP-14-4578, which was being driven by Sher Singh. This truck was owned by Rajeev Kohli and insured with National Insurance Company. The claimant alleged that he suffered various injuries and disability to the extent of 60% and claimed compensation. The claim petition was contested by the driver on the ground that in fact no accident had taken place. As far as the owner is concerned, in his reply he has only stated that the vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Company. The Insurance Company in its reply took up the plea that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and as such the Insurance Company was not liable.
3. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence led before it held that the accident did take place. The driver of the truck Sher Singh was found to be negligent and it was held that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal further held that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,72,800/~. Lastly the Tribunal held that the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving licence since the vehicle in question was a medium goods vehicle and the driver had a licence only to drive a light motor vehicle. It directed that the Insurance Company should deposit the amount of compensation in the first instance and would be entitled to recover the same from the owner.
4. FAO (MVA) No. 38 of 2003 has been filed by the Insurance Company and the main contention of the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has erred in directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the kward even though the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The next contention is that the amount of compensation granted is highly excessive. As far as the owner is concerned, the main ground raised by Mr. Harish Bahl, learned Counsel for the owner in his Appeal FAO (MYA) No. 305 of 2003 is that the Insurance Company should not be held entitled to recover the amount from the owner in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. .
5. The main question to be decided is whether the driver had a valid driving licence or not. Photocopy of registration certificate of the vehicle has been proved on record as Ex. R-4. It shows that the vehicle was registered as MGV (Medium Goods Vehicle). The gross vehicle weight or the registered laden weight of the vehicle is shown as 8770 kilograms. Light Motor Vehicle is defined in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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 road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms.
Medium goods vehicle is defined in Section 2(23) of the Act as follows:
2(23) “medium goods vehicle” means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle.
Heavy goods vehicle has been defined in Section 2(16) of the Act as follows:
2(16) “heavy goods vehicle” means 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.
6. It is thus clear that any goods vehicle the gross weight of which exceeds 7500 kilograms but does not exceed 12000 kilograms falls within the category of medium goods vehicle. It can definitely be said that it is not a light motor vehicle.
7. The driving licence of the driver shows that he was only entitled to drive a light motor vehicle. There is also an endorsement later made whereby he has been authorized to drive LTV (Light Transport Vehicle). However, it is clear that this licence did not authorize the driver to drive a transport vehicle, the gross weight of which was more than 7500 Kilograms.
8. Mr. Harish Bahl learned Counsel for the appellant has placed great reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case NIC v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (supra). He has referred to paras 36, 37, 38, 81 and 82 of the judgment. As far as paras 36 to 38 are concerned, they mainly deal with the words ‘effective licence’ as used in Section 3 of the Act and ‘duly licenced’ as used in Section 149(2) of the Act. Paras 81 and 82 of the judgment read as follows:
81. Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and contents of licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed form. Thus, a licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder to drive the vehicle falling within that class of description.
82. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to prescribe the forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in Sub-section (2) of the said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor-cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (f) road-roller; and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categoies of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are ‘goods carriage’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’, ‘heavy passenger motor vehicle’, ‘invalid carriage’, ‘light motor vehicle’, ‘maxicab/ ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger motor vehicle’, ‘motorcab’, ‘motor-cycle’, ‘omnibus’, ‘private service vehicle’, ‘semi-trailer’, ‘tourist vehicle’, ‘tractor’ ‘trailer’ and ‘transport vehicle’. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for ‘motor cycle without gear’, for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where holder of driving licence for ‘light motor vehicle’ is found to be driving a ‘maxicab’, ‘motorcab’, or omnibus for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the Claims Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle, but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.
9. The contention of Mr. Bahl is that though the driver of the truck did not have a licence to drive a medium goods vehicle even then the Insurance Company should be held liable since according to him this was not the cause of the accident. This argument though it seems attractive on the face of it is not at all in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly lays down that no person should drive a motor vehicle unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle. It further provides that no person shall drive a transport vehicle unless his licence specifically empowers him to do so. Sections 3 and 5 of the Act read as follows:
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 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 licence specifically entitles him so to do.
(2) The conditions subject to which Sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
5. Responsibility of owners of motor vehicles for contravention of Sections 3 and 4. No owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 to drive the vehicle.
10. A bare reading of these provisions especially Section 5 of the Act makes it absolutely clear that it is. the responsibility of the owner to ensure that he does not permit any person who does not have an effective driving licence as provided under Section 3 of the Act to drive the vehicle. In case the contention of Mr. Bahl is accepted, the result would be to encourage people to flout the provisions of law,, especially Section 5 of the Act. The observations of the Apex Court made in para 82 quoted above have to be read in the light of the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 and Section 149 of the Act. In my dpinion what the Apex Court held was that if on the basis of the evidence led before the Tribunal it is of the view that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechankal failure or such like causes having no connection whatsoever with the driving of the vehicle or type of licence held by the driver then the Insurance Company would not be entitled to avoid its liability. There can be instances where an accident occurs and the accident has no relationship with the driving of the vehicle. The accident may occur due to over loading which has no connection with the licence of the driver; the accident may occur due to “mechanical defect; the accident may occur due to blowing up of old worn out tyres. These examples can be multiplied. An accident may occur where though negligence can be attributed to the driver or the owner in not maintaining the vehicle properly or not running the vehicle properly, the negligence has no relationship with driving or the type of driving licence held by the driver. It is only if from the evidence on record it is clear that the accident has occurred due to such reasons having no connection with driving licence that the Insurance Company can be held liable.
11. While taking the aforesaid views, I have also considered the fact that in every case negligence has to be proved. If the accident has occurred due to negligence attributable to driving and not to other causes as set out above, then the Insurance Company can rightly claim that it should not be held liable to pay the amount since the owner has committed breach of the policy. In my opinion, it would a fundamental breach of the policy when the owner knowingly hands over the vehicle to a person not entitled to drive that class of vehicle. It is well known that different types of vehicles call for different expertise in driving. A person who can drive a motorcycle cannot be presumed to have knowledge of driving a car even though both are light motor vehicles. Similarly, a person who has a licence to drive a car cannot be presumed to have the knowledge or expertise to drive a motorcycle or a truck. The legislature therefore has provided for different tests and different licences for various types of vehicles. In my opinion, in fact it can be presumed to the contrary that in case a person does not have a licence to drive a particular category of vehicle then he does not possess the necessary expertise to drive and handle such a vehicle. The law provides that before a licence for different type of vehicle is given there must be a learner licence. During the period a person has a learner licence, he is to drive the vehicle in accordance with the rules laid down for such vehicle as a learner and acquire the requisite expertise for driving such class of vehicles.
12. No doubt, it is true that socially beneficial legislation like the Motor Vehicle Act must be liberally interpreted. However, this interpretation has to be for the benefit of the poor victims so that they can recover their money and there can be no sympathy for the owner of the vehicle who blatantly violates the law and then claims that the insurance company should be made responsible. The interest of the victim can be protected by directing the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount and to recover the same from the owner as provided by the Apex Court in Swaran Singh’s case (supra) in para 102(x) which reads as follows:
102(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with Sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has Tribunal. Such determination of the claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the samp manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal.
13. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, I am of the opinion that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is very excessive. The claimant in respect of his case has appeared as his own witness as PW-3. He claimed that he has suffered 60% disability. He produced a photocopy of the disability certificate, which was marked as mark ‘A’. Neither the original certificate was produced nor any doctor examined to prove this certificate. This court has repeatedly held that even though the strict rules of evidence may not be applicable to cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, but at least basic law has to be followed and photocopies of documents cannot be exhibited without proof. No medical evidence was led by the claimant to prove the disability certificate or the fact that the degree of disability reflected in the certificate was relateably to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimant for reasons best known to him did not produce any record of his treatment at I.G.M.C., Shimla or at PGI Chandigarh. In the absence of such evidence it cannot be said that the disability certificate even if read is relateably to the injuries sustained in the accident. Even otherwise, I find that the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding Rs. 1,42,800 on account of diminished future prospects. No reasons have been given by the Tribunal while coming to this figure. A perusal of the disability certificate mark ‘A’ further reveals that disability of 60% assessed was only in relation to the right hand of the claimant. It was not in relation to his whole body. The claimant was a Junior Executive and injuries to his right hand could not have caused 60% loss of earning out of job. This fact has however not been supported by his own witness PW-2. The claimant was employed with P.A. Pinions. This witness states that the claimant had left the job. His services were never terminated on account of the injuries suffered by him.
14. In the absence of any other cogent evidence I am only left with the statement of the claimant in support of his case with regard to the injuries suffered by him and the treatment, which he underwent. Even according to the claimant he remained in hospital only from 27.5.1997 till 29.5.1997 at Solan and till 2.6.1997 at I.G.M.C, Shimla. Thus he remained admitted in hospital only for about 6-7 days. The Tribunal has awarded him Rs. 2000 for loss of earning for the period he remained admitted in hospital, Rs. 5000/- for conveyance charges, Rs. 3000/- for attendant charges and Rs. 20,000 for pain and suffering. There is no error in this part of the award. He has also been awarded Rs. 1,42,800/- for diminishing of future prospects which is not supportable by any material on record. However, I feel that keeping in view the nature of injuries and the fact that the claimant remained in hospital for about 7 days he should be awarded Rs. 5000/- for medical expenses even though no bills or documentary evidence in this behalf has been produced. Further, in my opinion, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 20,000 for future discomfort, loss of amenities etc. Claimant is therefore entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 60,000/- only.
15. In view of the above discussion, the award of the Tribunal is set aside and the compensation reduced from Rs. 1,72,800/- to Rs. 60,000. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest on this amount at the rate of 9% p.a. with effect from 18.12.1998, the date of filing of the claim petition till date of deposit of the amount. It is further directed that though the Insurance Company shall satisfy the award at the first instance, it shall be entitled to recover the amount deposited by it alongwith future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. till date of recovery from the owner. The Insurance Company shall not be required to initiate separate proceedings to establish its right and it shall only be required to file execution proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to recover the amount from the owner.
16. Both the appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No cost.