i^. 2-°/ c^- ^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)/ 5^2J3809 ie! APEELLANT "-' '-^s;^^ ^•<^v «>\:e-s>^~ ^^^^\\M--" ..aS»SBE ^tS'.'tt''-' ?.*-•"' -Rupendra Kumar * S/0 Ishwari Prasad Chandrakar Age about 26 yrs, R/o Vill. Oteband P.S.Anda Tehsil & District Durg (c.g.) (DMVER) VERSUS RESPONDENTS f^.X.. l.Omprakash S/o Sanatanram sahu Age about 29 yrs R/o Vill. Oteband P.S-Anda Tehsil & District Durg (c.g.) ,.2. Gokaran Sahu S/o Jagdish Prasad Sahu R/o Vill. Janjgu-i Post Kuthrail P.S.Anda Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.) 3,. Branch Manager United India Insiirance Company Ltd. Durg (C.G.) 4. Smt. Tesau Bai W/o Late Omkar Prasad Dubey Age about 3 1 Yrs 5. Ku.Shivani Dubey D/0 Late Oinkar Prasad Dubey Age about 7 yrs 6. Ku. Sameksha Dubey D/0 Late Omkar Prasad Dubey Age about 3Yrs Respondent No. 5 & 6 Through Natural Gurdian Mofher Tesau Bai W/0 Late Omkar Prasad Dubey R/o Village Chandkhuri Post Chandkhuri Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLE ACT 1988 l^/^/ ^ 55_^^ w"^ HIGH COURT^)FCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (Cl No._l382 of 2009 Appellant Rupendra Kumar Versus Respondents Omprakash & others APPEAL UNDER SECTIQ^NJ_73_0_FLTHE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988 DB: HonTsle Shri I. M. Quddusi SE Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri D. P. Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sanjay S. Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu and Shri Anil Gulati, Advocates for the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6. ORD@l_[Oral) ( Passed on this 23rd day of February, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant (driver) against the impugned award dated 2.7.2009, passed by the 9thAdditional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg in Claim Case No. 27/2008, awarding a total sum of Rs. 3,34,047/-, holding the owner and driver of the offending vehicle as responsible for payment of compensation, jointly and severally, exonerating the insurance company. Therefore, the appellant/driver has challenged the impugned award to the extent that the liability to pay the amount of compensation is on the insurance company because of the reason that there was no breafch of the conditions of the insurance policy and the appellant/driver was having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident to drive the offending vehicle i.e. agricultural tractor for which a farmer's policy was issued by the insurance company. /z^; We have heard leamed counsel appearing for the appellant as well as leamed counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the lower Court record as also the findings given in the impugned award. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 16.4.2007 in the morning at about 11.30 a.m. Onkar Prasad Dubey, who was a Postman in the Indian Post & Telegraph Departraent, was going to the Sub Post Office at village—Anda, on his cycle from village - Chandkhuri. At that time in front of Kuthrail Bus Stop the tractor - trolley, bearing registration No. C.G. 04-6321 and 6322, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the non-applicant No.l, hit the cycle, as a result of which Onkar Prasad Dubey received grievous injuries and during treatment he died on 23.4.2007. The offence was registered at Police Station Anda, Dista-ict - Durg against the driver of the offending vehicle. On the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with the non-applicant No.4 - United India Insurance Company Limited. The clairaants, being legal heirs of deceased Onkar Prasad Dubey, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award ofatotal compensation ofRs. 24,03,968/-. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and considering the evidence on record awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,34,047/- as compensadon along with in-terest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date.ofthe application. It has'been held by fhe Tribunal that since there was breach of the conditions of the insurance policy therefore the insurance coinpany has been exonerated from any liability and the non-applicants No. 1 and 3 •;"".-•""•- ,"fe I'sg^ll -?/ /^ ^ ^. ;Wy.,(i '"h'&.,..;3^!r^ / (driver and owner) have been held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants, jointly or severally. 6. The appellant, who was the driver of the tractor-trolley (offending vehicle), was issued a driving licence for non-transport purpose to drive light motor vehicle and motor cycle with gear by the licencing authority on 4.1.2000 which was valid up to 3.1.2020. However, the authorization to drive transport vehicle was added which was valid for three years and lastly it was valid up to 23.7.2010. The Licencing Authority was the RTO Raipur and the driving licence No. was CG 04 20000006657. 7. Before proceeding further it is necessary to peruse certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Sections 11 and 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 2(b) ofthe Central MotorVehicles Rules, 1989 are relevant which are quoted below: "11. Additions to driving licence.—(1) Any person holding a driving licence to drive any class or description of inotor vehicles, who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence to drive any other class or description of motor vehicles, may apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area in which he resides or carries on his business in such form and accompanied by such, documents and with such fees as may be prescribed by the Central Goveminent for the addition of such other class or description of motor vehicles to the licence. (2) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed by the Central Government, the provisions of section 9 shall apply to an application under this section as if the said application was for the grant of a licence under that section to drive the class or description of inotor vehicles which the applicarit desires to be added to his licence." ...•^s>... '.::. •:^-';...." •^. ^ ^ 1:^PJ? ^Sv-^ ...3:-'it^ 4 "14. Currency of licences to drive rnotor vehicles.—(1)A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of SK months from the date of issue of the licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall— (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years. (Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nata-ire 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 licence,— (i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case raay 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 licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiiy. " "2 (b)."Agricultural tractor" means any mechanically propelled 4 wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/or trailers to ta-ansport agricultural materials. Agricultural tractor is a non-transport vehicle." 8. A pemsal of Section 14 (2) of the Act, 1988 would show that a • driving licence issued or renewed under the Motor Vehicle Rules to y -'•'y- ^ '> drive a transport vehicle is effective for three years, whereas in the case of any other licence it will be effective for a period of 20 years from the date of issue or renewal or until the holder of the licence attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier. However, this was amended w.e.f. 14.11.1994 by Act No. 54 of 1994, prior to that it was 40 years. 9. It is also to be noticed that if a person obtains a driving licence other then mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 1988 i.e. to drive a transport vehicle and wants to get an addition, Section 11 of the Act, 1988, as quoted above, would be applicable but if such addition has been made in the drivin; licence to drive the transport vehicle for three years, it cannot cut short the validity of the driving Ucence issued for non-ta'ansport vehicle purpose i.e. clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 14, as the legislature does not authorize a licencing authority to cut short the period of licence mentioned in fhat clause. 10. In the case of Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others (2001) 8 SCC 56 Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 has laid down as under : " 10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr S. C. Sharda. It is an adinitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under Section 10, a licehce is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for- carrying goods, the licence to drive a ta-actor becomes ineffective. If the argument ofMr S.C. Sharda is to be accepted, then every time an. owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light inotor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to / iii» .fff ,*''•" "-^ '^y'vs^, have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a pardcular category of vehicle does not becorae disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle." 11. Clause (b) of Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as quoted above, provides for the definition of "agricultural tractor^ which cleariy lays down that the agricultural tractor means any mechanically propelled 4-wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/or trailers to transport agricultural materials. It is a non-transport vehicle. 12. If the appellant was having a driving licence to drive a non- transport vehicle - light motor vehicle he could drive an agricultural tractor which is a nori-transport vehicle. 13. Now, we come to the insurance policy. At the very outset in the insurance policy following has been mentioned "Farmer s Package Policy", therefore, it is clear that the tractor in question was insured for agricultural purpose and the same.was an agricultural tractor as defined in sub-clause (b) of Section 2 of the Rules, 1.989. * 14. In view of the above it cannot be said that the appellant was not having the valid and effective driving licence to drive the agricultural tractor which was the offending vehicle on the date of S ^^h" ^-, • •<~-r^'' ^' •'t ^•'•y "'ss5t--—:-^~'": ^ the accident. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the claims Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company froin the liability to pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants, on the ground that the appellant/driver was not having an effective and valid driving licence on the date of accident. 15. In view of the above we allow this appeal and set aside the findings of the Claims Tribunal on the relevant issues No.2 and 3 wherein it has been held that there was breach of the conditions of fhe insurance policy as the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence and therefore the claifflants are endtled to get amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the non-applicants No. 1 and 3. 16. We hold that the driver was having the valid and effecdve drivin; licence on the date of the accident. Therefore, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants shall be paid by the insurance company instead of the appellant and the owner of the vehicle, jointly or severally. 17. '\Ve exonerate the appellant and owner from any liability to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the impugned award. The amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded. No order as to costs. .^ Sd/- I.M.Quddussi Judge 'Sdi- prashantKumarMishra Judge Thakur