THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1109 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal filed by the insurance company challenging the order dated 19.08.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, in W.C.No.233 of 2004.
Brief facts of the case are that the Applicant/Claimant filed an application before the Commissioner claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in an accident that occurred on 17.02.2004 while he was driving the 1st respondent's Auto bearing No.AP 13V 5902 at Rethibowli at 11:30 PM, and a tipper coming from ring road side towards Rethibowli dashed the auto. The Commissioner, after considering the evidence of AWs.1 and 2, and RW.1, and Exs.A1 to A9, and Exs.B1 to B4, awarded a compensation of Rs.98,121/- holding respondent No.1 (owner of the auto) and respondent No.2 (insurance company) jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, the United India Insurance Company Limited filed the present appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The only point which is canvassed before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant is that admittedly the claimant was not having a valid driving license to drive a transport vehicle. In those circumstances, the Commissioner ought to have rejected the claim.
Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel, this Court is not required to venture further except to refer to the latest judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v.
2 cma_1109_2021
CKR, J
Oriental Insurance Company Limited1. At the outset, it may be noted that the authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act had relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd2. The Ashok Gangadhar (2 supra) judgment was considered by the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan (1 supra) in paragraph 45, and the ratio in Ashok Gangadhar (2 supra) was approved by the three Judges Bench judgment in Mukund Dewangan (1 supra).
Paragraph 45 of Mukund Dewangan (1 supra) reads as under: "Coming to conflicting decisions of this Court entailing reference in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha2, this Court has considered the definition of "light motor vehicle" and held thus:
"10. The definition of "light motor vehicle" as given in clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to a "light goods vehicle" or a "light transport vehicle". A "light motor vehicle" otherwise has to be covered by the definition of "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" as given in clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor vehicle can be a non-transport vehicle as well."
No doubt about it, that in addition thereto the Court while dealing with the matter comprehensively has gone in question as to the pleadings and the evidence adduced and it was observed that since there was neither a pleading nor a permit produced on record, the vehicle remained a light motor vehicle. If we proceed on the basis of the definition itself, we reach to the same conclusion that for driving transport vehicle of light motor vehicle category, no separate endorsement is required on a licence. Even when a light motor vehicle is used for carrying goods or for hire or rewards, it becomes a transport vehicle, though it remains included in the category of light motor vehicle as 1 (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663 2 AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3181 3 cma_1109_2021 CKR, J per Section 2(21) of the Act. The interpretation of the definition in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha2, makes it clear that light motor vehicle cannot always be a light goods carriage. It can be a non-transport vehicle as well. The definition of a light motor vehicle includes light goods vehicle and light transport vehicle also. The interpretation of the definition of "light motor vehicle" in aforesaid extracted para 10 is sound and we are in unison with the same. It was not necessary for the Court to go into the question of pleadings and evidence in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha2."
In those circumstances, the appeal does require any further consideration, and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
24th March, 2021
ksm
4 cma_1109_2021
CKR, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM C.M.A.No.1109 of 2006 25th March, 2021 ksm