HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 310 of 2005 DATED: 03.03.2011 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant And Y. Pushpamma Y.Narsaiah Y.Jangamma Y.Srinu .. Claimants P.Malla Reddy and Madhusudhan Reddy Y.Suban Reddy .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The United India Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act challenging the order dated 21.02.2005 in W.C.No.A89 of 2001 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad. The claimants filed the aforementioned W.C. alleging that they are the wife, mother, father and minor son of the deceased-workman - Sri Ramulu, who died in an accident on 23.02.2000. It is sated that the deceased-workman was the driver of the Tractor and Tractor bearing Nos. AP 28E 6157 and 6158 belonging to the 5th respondent herein, and aged about 25 years and was paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- P.M. On 20.02.2000, at about 10.00 A.M., the deceased along with some labourers was going from Vikarabad to Gattuvanampalli by Tractor and Trailor bearing No. AP 28E 6157 and 6158 and while they were crossing unmanned railway gate, in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly, an Express Train hit the Tractor, as a result, the deceased, who was driving the Tractor and other labourers died on the spot. The railway police, Vikarabad registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2000 against the deceased under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. The applicants are totally dependants on the earnings of the deceased. Since the accident occurred when the deceased was in the course of employment, both the appellant and the 5th respondent - owner of the Tractor are liable to pay compensation to them. Hence, the claimants filed the aforementioned W.C. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- Before the Tribunal, the owner of the Tractor and Trailor filed counter denying all averments in the claim petition and stated that on the date of the accident, he had sold the Tractor to one Sri Y.Subhan Reddy for Rs.2,44,011/- and after receiving the entire sale consideration, he had physically delivered the possession of the vehicle on the same day. In this regard, the purchaser also executed an agreement-cum-declaration in respect of the vehicle. Therefore, in any event, it is the duty of the purchaser to get the vehicle transferred in his name after the vehicle is delivered to him, and the liability cannot be fastened on the 5th respondent, who also denied the manner of the accident, age, death and earnings of the deceased in the course of his employment. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company, the appellant herein, also filed counter denying all averments made in the claim petition and stated that the amount claimed by the claimants is very high. In its additional counter, it is stated that the vehicle was sold to the 6th respondent herein, but the policy is not transferred in his favour. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the deceased late Sri.Y.Ramulu met with an accident which arose out of and during the course of his employment as a driver on Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos. AP 28E 6157 and 6158 under the employment of the 5th respondent herein and sustained injuries and died? 2. If yes, who is liable to pay compensation to the applicants? 3. What is the amount of compensation that the applicants are entitled to? In order to substantiate their case, the 1st claimant got herself examined as AW1 besides examining one more witness as AW2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the United Insurance Company Limited, Exs.B1 to B7 were got marked, but no oral evidence was adduced. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant and the 5th respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,10,945/- together with stamp fee of Rs.422/- and an advocate fee of Rs.500/- amounting to Rs.2,11,867/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The learned Standing Counsel for United India Insurance Company Limited appearing for the appellant has strenuously contended that the deceased-workman, who drove the Tractor and Trailor at the time of the accident, was not having valid and effective driving licence i.e. licence for transport vehicle, which is a clear violation of Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the deceased also contravened the specifications made in Exs.B3 – investigation report and Ex.B4 – survey report. It is further contended that the owner of the Tractor sold away his vehicle to the 6th respondent, as such, the appellant cannot be fastened any liability to pay compensation. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order insofar as fastening of the liability in respect of the appellant is concerned. The learned Standing Counsel in support of his contentions, has relied on a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Others[1] wherein it is held as follows: “Although the definition of the ‘light motor vehicle’ brings within its umbrage both transport vehicle’ or ‘omnibus’, indisputably, as would be noticed infra, a distinction between an effective licence granted for transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists. Section 3 provides for the necessity of driving licence, stating: 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 motor car 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. Section 9 provides for grant of driving licence. Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect: Form and contents of licences to drive -- (1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner’s licence 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 following classes, namely:- (a) to (c)…. (d) Light motor vehicle; (e) Transport vehicle; (f) Road Roller; (g) 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. The distinction between a ‘transport vehicle’ and a ‘passenger vehicle’ can also be noticed from Section 14 of the 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.” Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The main contention of the appellant is that even though the deceased-workman, who drove the Tractor and Trailor, was not having valid and effective driving licence for transport vehicle, the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Ex.B3 - investigation report, according to which, the driver of the insured vehicle has got authorization to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) only and the licence was non-professional. He has further relied on Ex.B4 – survey report submitted by Sri Venkatesh Reddy wherein it is mentioned that the deceased was not authorized to drive Tractor and Trailor but authorized to drive private Tractor without Trailor. “Transport Vehicle” as defined under Section 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. In the light of the above-referred judgment, evidently, the Tractor - Trailor that was driven by the deceased- workman at the time of the accident, is a transport vehicle. Further, 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. From a perusal of Exs.B3 and B4, it is clear that the deceased – workman while driving the Tractor-Trailor, was possessing only driving licence for Light Motor Vehicle, but not for transport vehicle, which fact remains unrebutted. Hence, I find force in the contention put forth by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the same is sustainable. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant shall be exonerated from the liability fastened on it particularly in view of the fact that the deceased-workman while driving the Tractor and Trailor, was not having valid and effect licence, which is a clear infringement of the provision contemplated under Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the conditions of the contract of insurance and also contrary to the specifications made in Exs.B3 and B4. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2005 in W.C.No.A89 of 2001 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad, only to the extent of fastening the liability on the appellant – Insurance Company. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 03.03.2011 bcj [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2151