Case: M.S. BHATI Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has arisen from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (?NCDRC?) dated 25 October 2018 reversing a decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (?SCDRC?). The NCDRC restored the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (?District Forum?) to reject the consumer complaint filed by the appellant.3. The vehicle, a Mahindra Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ 17 TA 0010, met with an accident at 3 p.m. on 11 April 2008. As a result of the accident, the driver and eight persons died and three persons were injured.4. The First Information Report in regard to the accident being FIR No 35/2008 was lodged at PS Rampur, District Jhalawar(Rajasthan).5. The vehicle had been insured on 18 April 2007 with the respondent for a sum of Rs 2,70,084. The claim under the insurance policy was repudiated by the insurer. This led to the filing of a consumer complaint.6. The District Forum by its order dated 5 February 2013 rejected the complaint on the ground that while the accident took place at 2.10 pm on 11 April 2008, the driving license of the deceased driver appears to have been renewed at 2.42 pm on 11 April 2008. Holding that the driver did not have a valid license for driving a transport vehicle, the District Forum rejected the claim. This decision was reversed by the SCDRC. The NCDRC restored the decision of the District Forum.7. During the course of the hearing, the attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that when a claim was lodged before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (?MACT), a finding of fact was recorded to the effect that the driving license of the deceased driver for driving a four wheel vehicle upto the capacity of 7500 kgs was valid from 16 August 1994 to 18 May 2013.8. The MACT by its Award dated 8 February 2017, in a batch of accident cases, came to the following conclusion:?27.1 I have considered the aforesaid situation and also perused Exhibit A-5 and it is clear that the driving license of deceased Wasim Nawaz i.e. RJ 17/4097/16 Jhalawad for driving four wheller vehicle to the capacity of 7500 kg. and the same was valid from 16-8-94 to 18- 5-13 which was for light motor vehicle and it has been argued that though vehicle bearing registration no. RJ 17 TA 0010 was a taxi vehicle but the same comes under the category of light motor vehicle and thus deceased Wasim Nawaj was having a right to drive the said vehicle under the hold of driving license….? 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer states, on instructions, that the third party claims which were awarded by the MACT have been duly satisfied.10. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the definition of the expression ?light motor vehicle? in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 covers a transport vehicle of which the gross weight does not exceed 7500 kilograms. It was submitted that the license of the deceased driver to drive a light motor vehicle was valid between 16 August 1994 and 18 May 2013 and would cover a transport vehicle whose gross weight was less than 7,500 kgs. Reliance has been placed on a decision of three Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 14 SCC 663. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer submitted that the District Forum correctly rejected the claim, since even according to the appellant, the license for a transport vehicle of the deceased driver had been renewed at 2.42 p.m. on 11 April 2008, after the accident took place in which the driver had died on the spot. Hence, it was submitted that the renewal of the transport license in favour of a dead individual was not a valid renewal in the eyes of law and as a matter of fact, according to the insurer even the period of license had expired on 16 January 2008.12. Learned counsel further submitted on the alternative plea that the decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has been reserved for reconsideration by a larger Bench in M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No 841 of 2018) by a two Judge Bench of this Court on 3 May 2018.13. The law which has been laid down by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra) binds this Court. As a matter of judicial discipline, we are duty bound to follow that decision which continues to hold the field.14. In Mukund Dewangan (supra), a three Judge Bench had been constituted on a reference for resolving the issue as to whether a driver who has a license to drive a light motor vehicle and is driving a transport vehicle of that class is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle.15. The conflict of decision between two Judge Benches of this Court was resolved in Mukund Dewangan (supra). The conclusions in the decision of this Court read thus:?60.1 ‘Light motor vehicle? as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54 of 1994.60.2 A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ?unladen weight? of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of ?light motor vehicle? as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the ?unladen weight? of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.60.3 The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained ?medium goods vehicle? in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g)and ?heavy passenger motor vehicle? in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle? as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2) (d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.60.4 The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of ?transport vehicle? is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of ?light motor vehicle? continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.? 16. The fact that the driver had a license to drive a light motor vehicle which was valid on the date of the accident is not in dispute. The MACT returned a finding that the LMV license was valid from 16 August 1994 to 18 May 2013. The insurer has not urged anything in the course of the present proceedings to dispute this finding of fact. We have therefore proceeded on the basis that the driver had a valid LMV license on the date of the accident. Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the expression ?light motor vehicle? as follows:-?(21) ?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;? 17. The above provision has been interpreted by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan(supra). The conclusions have been extracted earlier. It is not disputed by the insurer in the course of these proceedings that the gross weight of the vehicle was in conformity with Section 2(21).

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]13. The law which has been laid down by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra) binds this Court. As a matter of judicial discipline, we are duty bound to follow that decision which continues to hold the field16. The fact that the driver had a license to drive a light motor vehicle which was valid on the date of the accident is not in dispute. The MACT returned a finding that the LMV license was valid from 16 August 1994 to 18 May 2013. The insurer has not urged anything in the course of the present proceedings to dispute this finding of fact. We have therefore proceeded on the basis that the driver had a valid LMV license on the date of the accident17. The above provision has been interpreted by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan(supra). The conclusions have been extracted earlier. It is not disputed by the insurer in the course of these proceedings that the gross weight of the vehicle was in conformity with Section 2(21).