Allahabad High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Aabida And 9 Others on 23 May, 2013
Bench: Rajes Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Reserved
First Appeal From Order No. 1237 of 2013
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its Regional Manager 60 Okhla Industrial State, New Delhi..........................Opposite
Party/Appellant.
Vs.
Aabida and others........................................Claimants/respondents.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Heard Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant.
The appellant is ensurer of Tempo, bearing registration No. U.P.17T-1595, which was involved in an accident occurred on 2.4.2011 in which Momin Ali died. Momin Ali was travelling in the tempo.
The sole submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the tempo possessed the licence of Motorcycle and Light Motor Vehicle. The vehicle, in question, was used for carriage of passengers for hire or reward and, thus, was a public service vehicle in view of Section 2 (35) of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and as such the same was a "transport vehicle" under Section 2 (47) of the Act. Thus, the licence for the "transport vehicle" was necessary or even there should be an endorsement in the driving licence in this regard, but in the absence of any licence for transport vehicle or any endorsement in driving licence, there was a breach of policy under Section 149 (2) of the Act and, thus, the Insurance Company is not liable.
I do not find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant.
Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicle Act defines "light motor vehicle", which means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms. As per the definition of the light motor vehicle, referred herein above, it includes a transport vehicle also. Light motor vehicle continued to cover both "light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. Therefore, if the driver possessed the licence of light motor vehicle he was eligible and competent to drive the light passengers carriage vehicle as well as light goods carriage vehicle of a weight not exceeding 7500 kilograms. In the present case, Tempo was involved in the accident. Tempo is a light passenger carriage vehicle. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the weight of Tempo was more than 7500 kilograms. Thus, in my view, the driver, who possessed the licence to drive the light motor vehicle was competent and eligible to drive the Tempo.
Reliance is placed upon the decision of the the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Anappa Irappa Nesaria, reported in (2008) 3 SCC. The Apex Court on the consideration of the definition of "light motor vehicle", "medium goods vehicle" , Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and the form for the driving license prescribed therein has held as follows:
"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 authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well."
No other point has been argued.
In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned order which requires interference.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Office is directed to remit back the statutory amount to the concerned Tribunal within four weeks.
Dated: 23.5.2013
OP
