Case: Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Angad Kol

The accident, as noticed hereinbefore, took place on 31.10.2004.15. Licence having been granted for a period of 20 years, a presumption, therefore, arises that it was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle.16. Had the driving licence had been granted for transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded to three years. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors., IV (2008) ACC 169 (SC)=(2008) 3 SCC 464 , this Court noticed the aforementioned development in the matter of grant of licence to a transport vehicle stating that the same became effective from 28.3.2001 in the following terms : “20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that ‘transport vehicle’ has now been substituted for ‘medium goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy goods vehicle’. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both ‘light passenger carriage vehicle’ and ‘light goods carriage vehicle’. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.21. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law.” 17. The effect of the different terms of licences granted in terms of the provisions of Sections 2(14) and 2(47) has also been noticed by this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, I (2008) ACC 54 (SC)=IX (2007) SLT 841=I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC)=(2008) 1 SCC 696 , stated: “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’. The vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorised to drive light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of 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.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx37. 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 of transport vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having licence to drive light motor vehicle. The licence was not endorsed as required and 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 endorsement 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." 18. The Court distinguished its earlier judgment in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (1999) ACC 463 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT 317=III (1999) CPJ 5 (SC)=(1999) 6 SCC 620 , stating: “41. In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable.” 19. However, in this case, the finding of fact arrived at that the vehicle in question was not proved to be a goods vehicle is not correct. The Regional Transport Officer, in his deposition, stated that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle. 20. From the discussions made hereinbefore, it is, thus, evident that it is proved that respondent No. 6 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence for driving a goods vehicle. Breach of conditions of the insurance is, therefore, apparent on the face of the records. 21. By an order dated 10.7.2008, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit 50% of the awarded amount. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if we, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution while directing the Insurance Company to deposit the balance amount before the Tribunal with liberty to the claimants to withdraw the same give right to the appellant to recover the said amount from the owner and the driver of the vehicle being Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 22.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. The Central Government had framed Rules known as `Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Form 4 prescribed therein provides for different columns for grant of a licence of light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle or heavy goods vehicle. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4 for a licence to drive a motor vehicle. An amendment was carried out on or about 28.3.2001 being JSR Rs. 221(E) in terms whereof, inter alia, licence which is to be granted in Form 6 requires a specific authorization to drive a ‘transport vehicle.14. The licence was granted to Respondent No. 6, Umesh, in 2003, i.e. after the said amendment came into force. The accident, as noticed hereinbefore, took place on 31.10.2004.15. Licence having been granted for a period of 20 years, a presumption, therefore, arises that it was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle.16. Had the driving licence had been granted for transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded to three years.The effect of the different terms of licences granted in terms of the provisions of Sections 2(14) and 2(47) has also been noticed by this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, I (2008) ACC 54 (SC)=IX (2007) SLT 841=I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC)=(2008) 1 SCC 696 ,Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an accident was a ‘transportIt was submitted that the insured vehicle was a ‘goodsand was thus a ‘transportThe vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorised to drive light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of 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.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 motorbut falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having licence to drive light motor vehicle. The licence was not endorsed as required and 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 endorsement 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 inCourt distinguished its earlier judgment in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (1999) ACC 463 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT 317=III (1999) CPJ 5 (SC)=(1999) 6 SCC 620 ,In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was heldin this case, the finding of fact arrived at that the vehicle in question was not proved to be a goods vehicle is not correct. The Regional Transport Officer, in his deposition, stated that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle.From the discussions made hereinbefore, it is, thus, evident that it is proved that respondent No. 6 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence for driving a goods vehicle. Breach of conditions of the insurance is, therefore, apparent on the face of the records.By an order dated 10.7.2008, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit 50% of the awarded amount. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if we, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution while directing the Insurance Company to deposit the balance amount before the Tribunal with liberty to the claimants to withdraw the same give right to the appellant to recover the said amount from the owner and the driver of the vehicle being Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.