JAGDISH KUMAR SOOD versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 17, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
17
JAGDISH KUMAR SOOD
v.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS
(Civil Appeal No. 240 of 2017)
MARCH 06, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended vide Amendment Act
54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 and further amendment w.e.f.
28/3/2001) – s.2(21) r/w ss. 2(15), 2(48) and 10(2)(d) – Death due
to motor accident – Tribunal awarded compensation but absolved
the insurer on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident
was a Light Goods Vehicle – Tribunal held that in the absence of a
specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle, the liability could
not be fastened on the insurer – Held: The issue is covered by a
judgment of a three  Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Mukund
Dewangan case – Order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer
accordingly set aside – The liability shall jointly and severally be
fastened on the insurer, in addition to the owner and driver.
The husband of third respondent died as a result of an
accident caused by a collision with an offending truck. The Tribunal
awarded compensation but absolved the insurer on the ground
that the vehicle involved in the accident was a Light Goods
Vehicle. The Tribunal held that in the absence of a specific
authorization to drive a transport vehicle, the liability could not
be fastened on the insurer.  The Tribunal directed the insurer to
pay in the first instance and allowed it to recover the compensation
from the driver and the owner.
High Court did not interfere with
the order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer. Hence the present
appeal by the owner.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : The issue which arises before the Court is not res
integra and is covered by a judgment of a three Judges of this
Court in Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company
Limited. The order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer shall
accordingly stand set aside. The liability shall jointly and severally
  [2018]  3 S.C.R. 17
     17
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
be fastened on the insurer, in addition to the owner and driver.
[Paras 4, 6] [19-A-F]
Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company
Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2017) 14 SCC 663
     relied on
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  :  Civil Appeal No. 240
of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.11.2014 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 2556 of 2011 (O&M).
R. K. Kapoor, Ms. Rekha Giri, Rajat Kapoor (for Anis Ahmed
Khan) Advs for the Appellant.
A. K. De, Ms. Ananya De, Zahid Ali (for Debasis Misra) Advs
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal allowed a claim for compensation filed by the third respondent.
The claim arose from the death of the husband of the claimant on 4
January 2009 as a result of an accident caused by a collision with an
offending truck.  The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs 4,08,000 together
with interest at 6 per cent per annum.  In an appeal filed by the third
respondent the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 8,04,000.
Interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum was awarded on the enhanced
compensation.
2. The Tribunal absolved the insurer on the ground that the vehicle
involved in the accident was a Light Goods Vehicle.  The driver had a
licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle.  The Tribunal held that in the
absence of a specific authorization to
drive a transport vehicle, the liability
could not be fastened on the insurer.  The Tribunal directed the insurer
to pay in the first instance and allowed it to recover the compensation
from the driver and the owner.  The present appeal has been filed by the
owner.
3. The High Court, while enhancing the compensation did not
interfere with the order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
19
4. The issue which arises before the Court is not res integra and
is covered by a judgment of a three Judges of this Court in Mukund
Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited1 in which it has
been inter aliaheldas follows:
“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 Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport
vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor
vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.” (Id at page
709)
“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 roadroller, “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 of 1994
and 28-3-2001 in the form.” (Id at page 710)
5. Having regard to the above position, the Civil Appeal will have
to be allowed.
6. The
appeal is allowed, the order of the Tribunal absolving the
insurer shall accordingly stand set aside. The liability shall jointly and
severally be fastened on the insurer, in addition to the owner and driver.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
                                Appeal allowed.
1(2017) 14 SCC 663
JAGDISH KUMAR SOOD v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
LTD. AND ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]