THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.381 of 2002 AND C.M.A.No. 384 of 2003: Date:27.01.2010 Between: C.M.A.No.381 of 2002 M.Jayaram and three others …Appellants C.M.A.No.384 of 2002 K.Chandrashekar …Appellant And/- M.Venkatesh and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.381 of 2002 AND C.M.A.No. 384 of 2003: COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals arise out of the accident occurred on 25.07.1997 wherein the motor vehicle i.e. mini lorry bearing No.AP-03-U-956 is involved. 2. The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.304 of 1997 are the appellants in C.M.A.No.381 of 2002, whereas the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.235 of 1998 is the appellant in C.M.A.No.384 of 2003. 3. M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Chittoor is the contesting respondent in both the appeals. 4. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.304 of 1997 and also awarded compensation of Rs.62,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.235 of 1998 to the claimants, but held that the first respondent-owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and exonerated the second respondent-Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident viz. mini lorry bearing No.AP-03-U-956 is a medium goods vehicle, but was driven by the driver who had licence only to drive light motor vehicle which is in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company. 6. Now the point for determination in these two appeals is whether the Tribunal below is correct in holding that the second respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation? 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the person who drove the mini lorry bearing No.AP-03-U-956 possessed only a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. 8. The next aspect requires consideration is whether the accident vehicle in question is a light motor vehicle or other than a light motor vehicle? 9. The Manager of second respondent-Insurance Company who is examined as RW-1 has categorically stated in his deposition that the gross weight of the vehicle involved in the accident is 8000 kilograms as per the certificate of registration and it is validly insured with the second respondent on the date of the accident. He further deposed that the said vehicle should be driven by a licence-holder holding a licence to drive heavy motor vehicle but not a driver holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants invited my attention to the deposition of the Superintendent in the Regional Transport Office, Chittoor who was examined as RW-2 in M.V.O.P.No.304 of 1997 who stated in the cross-examination that the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. mini lorry bearing No.AP-03-U-956 was registered as ‘light motor vehicle’ as per their records. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision reported in KAVITA CHOUHAN AND OTHERS v. RAJENDRA SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS[1] wherein the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior Bench held that the insurance company failed to establish that unladen weight of the offending vehicle was more than 7500 kilograms, but was driven by a person having licence only to drive a light motor vehicle, could not be exonerated from paying compensation to the claimants. 10. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is of no use to the claimants since in the present case, the second respondent- Insurance Company could able to prove by unimpeachable documentary evidence that the unladen weight of the mini lorry bearing No.AP-03-U-956 involved in the accident is 8000 kilograms. Ex.B-1 the copy of insurance policy shows that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company and it is mentioned in Ex.B-1 policy that the gross weight of the vehicle involved in the accident is 8000 kilograms. Further, Ex.B-3 registration extract of registering authority, Chittoor also indicates that the gross weight of the accident vehicle is 8000 kilograms. The second respondent-Insurance Company addressed a letter to the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor, the registering authority to ascertain whether the vehicle in question whose gross weight is 8000 kilograms was registered as ‘LMV Goods Carrier’ and to clarify whether ‘LMV’ licence is adequate to meet the requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act. In Ex.B-2 endorsement, the Registering Authority, Chittoor clarified that as per Clause (21) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, ‘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 7,500 kilograms. Clause (21) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act defines a light motor vehicle as follows: “Light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or roadroller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms.” According to Clause (23) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ‘medium goods vehicle’ means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle. 11. Therefore, in this case undoubtedly the vehicle involved in the accident viz. mini lorry bearing No.AP-03-U-956 is not a ‘light motor vehicle’ but was driven by a driver having only licence to drive the light motor vehicle. This is certainly in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the learned Tribunal below did not commit any mistake in exonerating the second respondent- Insurance Company from liability to pay compensation to the appellants/claimants in both the appeals and the said finding does not call for any interference in these appeals. 12. Keeping in view the appellants’ village background, I am of the opinion that it is highly difficult for them to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Hence, the second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award by depositing the compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of copies of these judgments and then recover the same from the owner without instituting any separate suit. 13. Accordingly, both the appeals i.e. C.M.A.No.381 of 2002 and 384 of 2003 are allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:27.01.2010 CCM THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.381 of 2002 AND C.M.A.No. 384 of 2003: Date:27.01.2010 [1] 2009 ACJ 956