c IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR nitni M.A. No. w< /2003 Claim valued at Rs. 1,78,600/- APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 'Appellant (Non-Applicant No.3) iited India Insurance Co'mpany Ltd. Through : Jts Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Main Road, Korba, Tah. & Distt. Korba (C.G.). VERSUS Respondents '(Applicant Na. 1) :.<^1 .^^^ ^'^»^v .^-{-' ^y^-^ ,egy~ ^-\ ?< &»fff on-Applicant No. 1) IBI Sanjeev Kumar Dubey, S/o Late B. P. Dubey, aged about 28 years, R/o In front of old Power House and behind Kedia House, Torwa, Hemu Nagar, P.S. Torwa, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Abdul Rahman S/o Mohd. Habib, Caste - Mohamadden, aged 45 years, . R/o Ward No. 6, In front of Vivekanand Colony, Manendi'agarh,, P.S. Manendragarh Diytt. Koria.dC.G.) (Owner) MMH ,:!f :^' ,^ >Y<y HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Appellant Resoondents Hon'ble Dr. Justice I.M. Quddysi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Minhaiuddjn Miscellaneous Appeal No. 485 ot2003 United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Sanjeev Kumar Dubey & others Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel forthe appellanVlnsurance Company. Shri A. K. Prasad, counsel for respondent No.2/owner. None for the other respondents. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15th December, 2011) Per Dr. I. M. Quddusi, J.: 1. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the United India Insurance Company challenging the award dated 10-02-2003 passed bythe Fifth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 105/2001. Brief facts of the case, according to the claimants, are that on 28.3.2000 at about 8.30 p.m. in the night the injured/applicant was going on the Hero Puck vehicle, bearing registration No. M.P. 26-G/5480 from Sheorinarayan to Bilaspur. On the way, due to rash 'and negligent driving by the driver (Rajesh Kumar) of Metadoor - 407, bearing* registration No. 59/0027 the accident was occurred thereby the claimant got fracture in his right leg which resulted in 40% permanent physical disability. ';-!l.. ¥ 6. 7. The injured/claimant preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') daiming total compensation of Rs. 7,25,OOO/-. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded compensation of Rs. 1,78,600/- along with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimant holding liability on the non-claimants to satisfy the award jointly and severally. Learned counsel appearing for the appellanVinsurance company has contended that the offending vehicle was a goods carrying vehicle (transport vehicle). Indisputably, the driver of the light goods carriage vehicle (non-transport vehicle) was having a licence for 20 years, which was issued under clause (b) of sub- section (2) of Section 14 of the Act and it provides that in the case of other than a transport vehicle, the licencewill be issued for 20 years or upto the age of 50 years of the licence holder, whichever is earlier. There is no endorsement on the licence to drive goods carrying vehicle (transport vehicle). But the Claims Tribunal has given a finding that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence. We have perused the document (Ex. N.A.3(1)) issued by the regional transport office, Bilaspur, wherein the date of issue ofthe licence is mentioned as 24.8.1999 and it was to expire on 23.8.2019. It was issued to drive LMV non transport vehic'le. No doubt that the offending vehicle, which wasia Matadoor 407, was insafted under a package policy Goods Carrying Vehicle "'B" o^^ :.jy 3 policy and, therefore, it was a transport vehicle for which a licence for threeyears under Section 14(2)(a) of the Act was liable to be issued but the driver was not having a licence to drive a transport vehicle. 8. In New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Prabhu Lal, •» (2008) 1 SCC 696, it was held in paragraphs 30, 37 and 38 thus: "30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an accident was a "transport vehicle". It was submitted that the insured vehicle was a "goods carriage" and was thus a "transport vehicle". Thevehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorized to drive light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absenceof necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, the Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation. 37. The argument of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, Ram Narain had no valid and effective licence to drive Tata 709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, referring to various provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having licence to drive light motor vehicle, he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3). Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make.it clear that if a vehicle is "light motor vehicle", but falls under the category oftransport vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsecf-tinder Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light mdtor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicTe. It is not in dispute that in the jastant case, Ram Narain was having licence to drive light motor vehicle. The licence was not endorsed as required and, 1 )ST;' ifti < 13 1t :£ "••••-itn.iiiSilMuldiULU'iillliIllliiii^ii^li, r^ hence, he could not have driven Tata 709 in absence of requisite endorsement and the Insurance Company could not be held liable. 38. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find that the District Forum considered the question in its proper perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the category of transport vehicle under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore, required the driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to ply such vehicle. It is not even the case of the complainant that there was such ehdorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District Forum was right in holding that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehicle in question." 9. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Angad Kol and others, (2009) 11 SCC 356, it was held in paragraphs 15, 16 and 18thus: "15. Section 9 provides for "grant of driving licence". Section 10 prescribes the form andcontents of licences to drive which is to the following effect: "10. Form and contents of licences to dhve.-C\) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issuedunder Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contai.n such information as may be prescribed bythe Central Government. : (2) A learner's-ticence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the follQwing classes, namely: (a)-(G)* ** . - ;'- \. X. iW UiQllI •-S-Sa, (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description."The distinction between a "light motor vehicle" and a "transport vehicle" is, therefore, evident. 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. 16. The distinction between a "transport vehicle" and a "passenger vehicle" can also be noticed from Section 14 ofthe Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 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. 18. The Insurance Company examined Shri R.K. Hila, an officer of the Regional Transport Authority. The contents of his deposition, as has been noticed by the learned Tribunal in para 7 of the award, is as under: "The onus of Issue 2 is on Opposite Party 3. But they could not establish their allegation that the vehicle was driven contrary to the conditions ofthe insurance contract. Witness 1 ofthe opposite party Shri R.K. Hela ofthe Regional Transport Authority has stated that Opposite Party 1 had licence to drive light motor vehicle for the period 30-7-2003 to29-7-2023 and the vehicle involved is a light goods vehicle. It is contended that the holder of the licence had to obtain an endorsement to drive goods vehicles but it has not been established whether the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods vehicle and whether the holder of the licence was entitled to drive a goods carriage vehicle. It has also not been established that the vehide involved was 'ygoods carriage vehicle. Opposite Party 3 could not establish that the vehicle was driven Gontrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance. As a result Oppgsite Party 3 has not been able to establish that the driver of the vehicle which caused the accident did rtbt have an 11.1,1- ^:^i!l^&a'£:^i^3s£:;::s/ss^^ ">.\ •r\' ^ effective and valid licence. Hence Issue 2 is decided against Respondent 3." 10. In New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, (2008) 8 SCC 253, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 10 thus: "10. Section 10 of the Act provides for classes of the driving licence. Different classes of vehicle have been defined in different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The "transport vehicle" is defined in Section 2(47) of the Act to mean a public service vehicle, a goodscarriage,-an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. We have noticed hereinbefore the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 41. We have also noticed the notification issued by the Central Govemment in this behalf. 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. The licence granted in favour of the said Salim Amadbhai goes to show that the same was granted for a vehicle other than the transport vehicle. It was valid from 13-5-2004 to 12-5- 2024. Section 14(2)(a) 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 threeyears 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. The fact that the licence was granted for a period of 20 years, thus, clearly shows that Salim Amadbhai, driver of fhe vehicle, was not granted a valid driving licence for driving a trarisport vehicle." 11. In view of the above discussions, we are of the firm opinion that the appellant/insurance company i§ not liable to pay compensation. ^ivancsn ^ 7 12. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company/appellant is exonerated from its liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and that part of the impugned award by which the Insurance Company has been directed to pay the amount of compensation is set aside. However, it will be open for the claimant to recover the amount from the owner and dirver of the vehicle, jointly or severall. 13. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to it, if not already disbursed to the claimant, else, the appellant shall recover the same from the owner and driver, jointly or severally. 14. No order as to costs. - Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G, Minhajuddin Judge ivw^