1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr[CASE NUMBER]JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM MFA No[CASE NUMBER]31725/2012(MV) CONNECTED WITH [CASE NUMBER](MV) [CASE NUMBER](MV) WP No[CASE NUMBER]85851/2012(GM-AC) WP No[CASE NUMBER]85852/2012(GM-AC) WP No[CASE NUMBER]85854/2012(GM-AC) IN MFA No[CASE NUMBER]31725/2012 BETWEEN: [ENTITY] S/O [ENTITY] AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O [ENTITY] DIST[CASE NUMBER] BIJAPUR APPELLANT (BY SRI [ENTITY], ADVOCATE) AND: 1[CASE NUMBER] M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO[CASE NUMBER] LTD[CASE NUMBER] 19, RELIANCE CENTRE 2 WALCHAND-HIRACHAND MARG BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO[CASE NUMBER] LTD[CASE NUMBER] NO[CASE NUMBER]28, 5TH FLOOR EAST-WING CENTENARY BUILDING M[CASE NUMBER]G[CASE NUMBER]ROAD, BANGALORE-01 2[CASE NUMBER] SHIVAYYA S/O PARAMAYYA MATH AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O BALAGANOOR NOW AT PULKESHI NAGAR BIJAPUR RESPONDENTS (BY SRI [ENTITY], ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DT[CASE NUMBER] 25[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]13) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER [SECTION] OF [ACT] AGAINST THE [ENTITY] AND AWARD DATED 16[CASE NUMBER]02[CASE NUMBER]2012 PASSED IN [CASE NUMBER] ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO[CASE NUMBER]V, BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS[CASE NUMBER]1,53,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P[CASE NUMBER]A[CASE NUMBER] IN [CASE NUMBER] BETWEEN: [ENTITY] S/O [ENTITY] AGED ABOUT:45 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O [ENTITY], TQ[CASE NUMBER] MUDDEBIHAL DIST[CASE NUMBER] BIJAPUR APPELLANT (BY SRI [ENTITY], ADVOCATE) 3 AND: 1[CASE NUMBER] M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO[CASE NUMBER] LTD[CASE NUMBER] 19 RELIANCE CENTRE WALCHAND-HIRACHAND MARG BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO[CASE NUMBER] LTD[CASE NUMBER] NO[CASE NUMBER]28, 5TH FLOOR EAST-WING CENTENARY BUILDING M[CASE NUMBER]G[CASE NUMBER]ROAD, BANGALORE-01 2[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] S/O [ENTITY] AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: CARPENTER WORK R/O VENKATGERI GALLI BIJPAUR RESPONDENTS (BY SRI [ENTITY], ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DT[CASE NUMBER] 25[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]13) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER [SECTION] OF [ACT] AGAINST THE [ENTITY] AND AWARD DATED 16[CASE NUMBER]02[CASE NUMBER]2012 PASSED IN [CASE NUMBER] ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO[CASE NUMBER]V BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS[CASE NUMBER]94,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P[CASE NUMBER]A[CASE NUMBER] IN [CASE NUMBER] BETWEEN: [ENTITY] S/O [ENTITY] AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS 4 R/O [ENTITY], TQ[CASE NUMBER] MUDDEBIHAL DIST[CASE NUMBER] BIJAPUR APPELLANT (BY SRI [ENTITY], ADVOCATE) AND: 1[CASE NUMBER] M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO[CASE NUMBER] LTD[CASE NUMBER] 19, RELIANCE CENTRE WALCHAND-HIRACHAND MARG BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO[CASE NUMBER] LTD[CASE NUMBER] NO[CASE NUMBER]28 5TH FLOOR, EAST-WING CENTENARY BUILDING M[CASE NUMBER]G[CASE NUMBER]ROAD, BANGALORE-01 2[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] W/O [ENTITY] AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O BALAGANOOR NOW AT PULKESHI NAGAR BIJAPUR RESPONDENTS (BY SRI [ENTITY], ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DT[CASE NUMBER] 25[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER]13) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER [SECTION] OF [ACT] AGAINST THE [ENTITY] AND AWARD DATED 16[CASE NUMBER]2[CASE NUMBER]2012 PASSED IN [CASE NUMBER] ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL No[CASE NUMBER]V BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS[CASE NUMBER]88,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P[CASE NUMBER]A[CASE NUMBER] IN [CASE NUMBER] 5 BETWEEN: [ENTITY] S/O [ENTITY] AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AT POST[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], TQ[CASE NUMBER] MUDDEBIHAL DIST[CASE NUMBER] BIJAPUR PETITIONER (BY SRI [ENTITY], ADVOCATE) AND: 1[CASE NUMBER] SMT[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] W/O [ENTITY] AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS OCC: COOLIE, R/O BALAGANUR NOW RESIDING AT BALAGANUR NOW RESIDING AT PULKESHI NAGAR BIJAPUR 2[CASE NUMBER] RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO[CASE NUMBER] LTD[CASE NUMBER] 19, RELIANCE CENTRE WALCHAN HIRANCHAND MARGA BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI THROUGH RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO[CASE NUMBER] LTD[CASE NUMBER] NO[CASE NUMBER]28 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING M[CASE NUMBER]G[CASE NUMBER]ROAD, BANGALORE RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER [SECTION] OF THE [ACT] PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN [CASE NUMBER] ON THE FILE [ENTITY] DATED 16[CASE NUMBER]02[CASE NUMBER]2012 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY[CASE NUMBER] 6 IN [CASE NUMBER] BETWEEN: [ENTITY] S/O [ENTITY] AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS, AT POST[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], DIST[CASE NUMBER] BIJAPUR PETITIONER (BY SRI [ENTITY], ADVOCATE) AND: 1[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] W/O [ENTITY] AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS OCC: COOLIE, R/O BALAGANUR NOW RESIDING AT PULAKESHI NAGAR BIJAPUR 2[CASE NUMBER] RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO[CASE NUMBER] LTD[CASE NUMBER] 19, RELIANCE CENTRE WALCHAN HIRANCHAND MARGA BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI, THROUGH RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO[CASE NUMBER]LTD[CASE NUMBER], NO[CASE NUMBER]28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING M[CASE NUMBER]G[CASE NUMBER]ROAD, BANGALORE - 01 RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER [SECTION] OF THE [ACT] PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER IN THE NATTIER OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN [CASE NUMBER] ON THE FILE OF THE [ENTITY] 7 DATED 16[CASE NUMBER]02[CASE NUMBER]2012 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY[CASE NUMBER] IN [CASE NUMBER] BETWEEN: [ENTITY] S/O [ENTITY] AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS, AT POST[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY], DIST[CASE NUMBER] BIJAPUR PETITIONER (BY SRI [ENTITY], ADVOCATE) AND: 1[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] S/O [ENTITY] AGED ABOUT: 30 YEARS OCC: COOLIE, R/O BALAGANUR NOW RESIDING AT PULAKESHI NAGAR BIJAPUR 2[CASE NUMBER] RELIANCE GENERAL IONSURANCE CO[CASE NUMBER] LTD[CASE NUMBER] 19, RELIANCE CENTRE WALCHAN HIRANCHAND MARGA BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI THROUGH RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO[CASE NUMBER] LTD[CASE NUMBER] NO[CASE NUMBER]28, 5TH FLOOR EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING M[CASE NUMBER]G[CASE NUMBER]ROAD, BANGALORE -01 RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER [SECTION] OF THE [ACT] PRAYING TO ISSUE 8 AN ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE [ENTITY] AND AWARD PASSED IN [CASE NUMBER] ON THE FILE OF [ENTITY], DATED 16[CASE NUMBER]02[CASE NUMBER]2012 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY[CASE NUMBER] THESE APPEALS ALONG WITH WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- [ENTITY]
Insured owner of the vehicle bearing registration No[CASE NUMBER]KA-28 8799 (autorickshaw) is in appeal and in writ action against the direction of the Tribunal to discharge the award[CASE NUMBER]
2[CASE NUMBER] Heard Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the appellant and Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the insurer of the vehicle[CASE NUMBER] Notice to respondents/claimants has been dispensed with[CASE NUMBER]
3[CASE NUMBER] The occurrence of the accident on 06[CASE NUMBER]11[CASE NUMBER]2008 involving autorickshaw passenger vehicle bearing registration No[CASE NUMBER]KA-28-8799 enroute to Balaganoor resulting in injuries to the passengers and the finding of the Tribunal that accident was result of negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle, as also validity of the insurance policy and the sufferance of the injuries by the respondents in these appeals are not brought in question by the insured or the insurer[CASE NUMBER] It has reached finality[CASE NUMBER]
4[CASE NUMBER] The insured owner is aggrieved as the Tribunal while granting compensation to the claimants by the impugned judgments held that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess licence to drive the autorickshaw passenger vehicle which is classified by the notification of the Central Government under [SECTION] of the Act as transport vehicle[CASE NUMBER] Consequent to such fact finding, learned member of the Tribunal accepted the defence of the insurance company that there was violation of terms of the insurance policy as the insured owner had allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person who did not possess licence to drive that particular class of vehicle[CASE NUMBER]
5[CASE NUMBER] Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me to the evidence on record as also the fact that the driver did possess licence issued by the Regional Transport Officer of the jurisdiction licencing him to drive light motor vehicle[CASE NUMBER] The vehicle involved in the accident is passenger autorickshaw which has unleaden weight of 7,500 kgs[CASE NUMBER] and thus comes within the definition of light motor vehicle[CASE NUMBER] On that basis, it is submitted the driver possessed licence to drive light motor vehicle and he was authorized to drive the autorickshaw[CASE NUMBER]
6[CASE NUMBER] In negation of these grounds, Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the insurer submits the driver no doubt was granted licence to drive light motor vehicle but there is an endorsement 'non-transport'[CASE NUMBER] Therefore, he was not authorized to drive passenger autorickshaw[CASE NUMBER] The Central Government has classified by virtue of notification as transport vehicle[CASE NUMBER] He therefore, supports the order of the Tribunal to this extent[CASE NUMBER]
7[CASE NUMBER] He seeks citations to support his contention relying on the following decisions:
1) [PRECEDENT] reported in [CASE NUMBER];
2) [PRECEDENT];
3) [PRECEDENT];
4) [PRECEDENT];
5) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v[CASE NUMBER] N[CASE NUMBER]M[CASE NUMBER]Rajaprakash reported in LAWS(KAR)-
2010-3-55;
1) In the case of [PRECEDENT] reported in [CASE NUMBER], at paragraph 5 it has held as follows:
"5[CASE NUMBER] [SECTION] of the Act provides for classes of the driving licence[CASE NUMBER] Different classes of vehicle have been defined in different provisions of the [ACT][CASE NUMBER] The `transport vehicle' is defined in [SECTION] of the Act to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle[CASE NUMBER] We have noticed hereinbefore the provisions of [SECTION][CASE NUMBER] We have also noticed the notification issued by the Central Government in this behalf[CASE NUMBER] The said notification clearly postulates that a three wheeled vehicle for transport of passengers or goods comes within the purview of class 5 of the table appended thereto[CASE NUMBER] The liecence granted in favour of the said [ENTITY] goes to show that the same was granted for a vehicle other than the transport vehicle[CASE NUMBER] It was valid from 13[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2004 to 12[CASE NUMBER]05[CASE NUMBER]2024[CASE NUMBER] [SECTION] provides that a driving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall, in case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle will be effective for a period of three years whereas in the case of any other vehicle it can be issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance or renewal[CASE NUMBER] The fact that the licence was granted for a period of 20 years, thus, clearly shows that [ENTITY], driver of the vehicle, was not granted a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle[CASE NUMBER]"
2) In the case of [PRECEDENT], at paragraph 5 it has held as follows:
"5[CASE NUMBER] The distinction between a 'light motor vehicle' and a 'transport vehicle' is, therefore, evident[CASE NUMBER] A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained[CASE NUMBER] The distinction between a 'transport vehicle' and a 'passenger vehicle' can also be noticed from [SECTION] of the Act[CASE NUMBER] [SECTION] provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective licence to drive a 'transport vehicle' whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years[CASE NUMBER]"
3) In the case of [PRECEDENT] and in the case of [PRECEDENT], same view is taken[CASE NUMBER]
8[CASE NUMBER] The above extracts are the opinions of the Apex Court regarding validity of driving licence[CASE NUMBER] The reading of observation in each of these decisions would show that the Apex Court considering the conspectus of the provisions of the motor vehicle has opined that if a person is found to be driving a private vehicle without there being endorsement to drive transport vehicle is to be held he did not possess valid driving licence[CASE NUMBER] Such an opinion of the Apex Court undoubtedly is exposition of law on the subject and needs application[CASE NUMBER] We are not dealing with that issue in these appeals but we are dealing with the issue as to whether insurance company could avoid liability based on only defence[CASE NUMBER]
9[CASE NUMBER] It is not in dispute the driver of the offending vehicle possessed licence to drive particular class of vehicle but found driving another class of vehicle[CASE NUMBER] Can such defence absolve the insurance company of its statutory liability created by [SECTION] of the motor vehicle, is the issue in limini[CASE NUMBER]
10[CASE NUMBER] I do not wish to re-advert to niceties in the defence of the insurance company but would like to deal with it as to whether even such a defence is taken by the insurance company and on evidence if it is found that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed licence for a particular class of vehicle but was found driving another class of vehicle can insurance company be given clean chit and absolve it of the statutory liability[CASE NUMBER] Therefore, it is necessary first to advert to the nature of defence that is available to the insurance company and under what circumstance it could be absolved of liability to discharge the award[CASE NUMBER] The attention has to be drawn to [SECTION] of the [ACT] which is the only provision under the Act to give right to the insurance company to avoid the liability[CASE NUMBER] [SECTION] reads thus:
149[CASE NUMBER] Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks[CASE NUMBER] (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under [SECTION] in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under [SECTION] (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) [or under the provisions of [SECTION]] is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments[CASE NUMBER]
11[CASE NUMBER] The provisions extracted above is explicit and mandates duty of insurer to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks[CASE NUMBER] Therefore, when the claim is by the 3rd party, the only right insurance company has and the nature of the defence it is permitted to take has to be derived from [SECTION] only and no other provisions[CASE NUMBER] [SECTION] envisages, if, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under [SECTION] in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under [SECTION] (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) [or under the provisions of [SECTION]] is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments[CASE NUMBER]
12[CASE NUMBER] Therefore, the provisions of [SECTION] casts statutory duty inescapable in law on the insurance company to discharge the award once passed in favour of the claimants irrespective of the fact that the insurance company may have right to cancel or avoid the policy or may have cancelled or avoided the policy[CASE NUMBER] Therefore, even if, as on the date of the claims, the insurance company had cancelled the policy or avoided the policy, even then, [SECTION] mandates insurance company cannot resist the direction issued by the Tribunal to pay the amount of compensation as may be determined to be paid by the insured owner of the vehicle in favour of the claimants[CASE NUMBER] The provision contains specific terminology present and past[CASE NUMBER] It provides for two situations (1) insurance company may have right to avoid or cancel the policy or the insurance company may have avoided or cancelled the policy[CASE NUMBER] The reasonable conclusion would be that this statutory obligation has to be discharged of-course subject to other provisions[CASE NUMBER] [SECTION] postulates:
149(2)[CASE NUMBER] No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:
(a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:
(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle-
(a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or
(b) for organized racing and speed testing, or
(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or
(d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or
(ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or
(iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or
(b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular[CASE NUMBER]
13[CASE NUMBER] The only circumstance indicated in sub-section is no sum shall be payable by the insurer under sub- section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the said proceedings in which the judgment and award is given by the insurer has noticed through the Court or as the case may be, in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to make party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds[CASE NUMBER] Therefore, the grounds on which the insurance company could avoid liability is also spelled out in [SECTION], which reads as follows:
149(2)(a)[CASE NUMBER] that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:
(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle-
(a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or
(b) for organized racing and speed testing, or
(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or
(d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or
(ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or
14[CASE NUMBER] The ground in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) is only the defence available to the insurance company and undoubtedly this has to be substantiated by the insurance company itself[CASE NUMBER] As seen from [SECTION], which reads, no insurer to whom the notice referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any such judgment or award as is referred to in sub-section (1) or in such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (3) otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2) or in the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, as the case may be that means unless the insurance company discharges its obligation caste under sub-section (2) to prove that accident was result of a person driving vehicle of other class than what he was licenced to drive[CASE NUMBER] Sub-section (2) prohibits any order absolving the insurance company[CASE NUMBER]
15[CASE NUMBER] We have to now see the other case laws cited at bar[CASE NUMBER]
16[CASE NUMBER] Learned counsel for the claimant has referred to the decision in the case of [PRECEDENT], which the basis for consideration in all subsequent decisions of the Apex Court[CASE NUMBER] The view in [ENTITY] case regarding validity of the licence has been the result of examining several provisions of the [ACT] and suffices us to say the Apex Court's conclusion in paragraphs 89 and 90 and 91 is an answer, which are extracted below:
" 89[CASE NUMBER] [SECTION] 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[CASE NUMBER] [SECTION] of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said section[CASE NUMBER] The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description[CASE NUMBER] The definition clause in [SECTION] of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in [SECTION][CASE NUMBER]
They are "goods carriage", "heavy goods vehicle", "maxi-cab", "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "motor- cab", "motorcycle", "omnibus", "private service vehicle", "semi-trailer", "tourist vehicle", "tractor", "trailer" and "transport vehicle"[CASE NUMBER] In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal as a person possessing a driving licence for "motorcycle without gear", (sic may be driving a vehicle) for which he has no licence[CASE NUMBER] Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for "light motor vehicle" is found to be driving a "maxi-cab", "motor-cab" prosecution "omnibus" for which he has no licence[CASE NUMBER] In each case, no evidence led before the 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[CASE NUMBER] If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the 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[CASE NUMBER]
90[CASE NUMBER] We has construed and determined the scope of [SECTION] of the Act[CASE NUMBER] Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles[CASE NUMBER] Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties[CASE NUMBER]
91[CASE NUMBER] On all pleas of breach of licensing conditions taken by the insurer, it would be open to the Tribunal to adjudicate the claim and decided inter se liability of insurer and insured; although where such adjudication is likely to entail undue delay in decision of the claim of the victim, the Tribunal in its discretion may relegate the insurer to seek its remedy of reimbursement from the insured in the Civil court[CASE NUMBER]"
17[CASE NUMBER] From the extracted portion of the judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear mere defence that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing licence to drive different type of vehicle and not the type of vehicle involved in the accident, is not enough to absolve the insurance company from the liability of discharging the award[CASE NUMBER] The case law mandates that there must be evidence to show that primary cause of accident was attributable to the driver to drive the type of offending vehicle for which, he was not licensed[CASE NUMBER] In other words, it should be proved occurrence of accident is only because the driver of the offending vehicle was licensed to drive different type of vehicle than the one involved in the accident[CASE NUMBER] However, if the cause of action is different, then merely because the driver of offending vehicle was possessing to drive another type of vehicle in the same category, but not the type of vehicle involved in the accident is not sufficient to absolve the liability of insurance company[CASE NUMBER]
18[CASE NUMBER] The proposition of law applies to the facts of the case[CASE NUMBER] In the instant case, the vehicle involved is an autorickshaw, whereas the driver was possessing licence to drive light motor vehicle[CASE NUMBER] The definition of Light Motor Vehicle in the [ACT], reads as follows:
"2(21) Light Motor Vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight or either of which or a motor car of tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms[CASE NUMBER]"
The definition of Light Motor Vehicle shows the driver is authorized to drive the Light Motor Vehicle[CASE NUMBER] It could be a transport vehicle also[CASE NUMBER]
19[CASE NUMBER] In this view, I find no merit in the grounds of appeal[CASE NUMBER] The appeal and the writ petitions filed by the insurance company against the judgment and award impugned in each of the appeals and the directions to the appellant company discharging the award are confirmed[CASE NUMBER]
[CASE NUMBER], [CASE NUMBER], [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER], [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER] are dismissed[CASE NUMBER]
The statutory amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal[CASE NUMBER]
JUDGE NB*