Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Naseem And Another vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. ... on 15 January, 2025
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2555
Court No. - 4
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 758 of 2014
Appellant :- Mohd. Naseem And Another
Respondent :- United India Insurance Company Ltd. Faizabad And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Pandey,Abhinav Mishra,Ganga Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Vikas Verma
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Ganga Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Vikas Verma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. This first appeal from order (F.A.F.O.) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 27.05.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 46 of 2013, Bachchu Lal & anr. v. Mohd. Naseen & ors., by means of which the awarded amount has been directed to be paid by the respondent- Insurance Company, with a right of recovery from the appellants, i.e., owner and driver of the vehicle.
3. Sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that the offending vehicle in question bearing Registration No. UP-45T/0721 was being driven by the driver having Licence No. UP45/2006450, which was valid from 26.05.2011 to 14.04.2030 and it was for motorcycle and light motor vehicle, therefore, being light goods vehicle, it was rightly being driven by the driver. The vehicle in question was Pickup. He relies on a judgment and order dated 03.07.2017 passed in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment and order dated 06.11.2024 passed by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Tiwari & ors., Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the legal position and the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Having considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is apparent that the offending vehicle having registration No. UP-45T/0721 was a light motor vehicle, unladen weight of which was 610 Kgs. and laden weight 1110 Kgs. as per the Registration Certificate, contained in paper No. 12-Ga filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Driver of the offending vehicle was having the driving licence of Motorcycle and Light Motor Vehicle valid for driving Light Motor Vehicles. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) has held that "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 road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg.".
6. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) by a Constitution Bench while answering the reference. The conclusions recorded in paragraph 131, are extracted hereinbelow:
"(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without needing additional authorization underSection 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle' class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a 'Transport Vehicle,' does not supersede the definition of LMV provided inSection 10(21) of the MV Act.
(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving 'transport vehicles' would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger vehicle'. (IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment."
7. In view of the above, the vehicle in question, a Pickup, the gross weight of which is below 7500 Kgs., would be a Light Motor Vehicle and it was being driven by a driver, who was having driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicles, insured with the respondent No. 1- Insurance Co., therefore, the awarded amount is to be paid by the Insurance Company, as there was no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and right of recovery could not have been granted. Thus, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set-aside and modified to the said extent.
8. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.
9. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 27.05.2014 is set aside to the extent it grants right of recovery to the Insurance Company from the appellant. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the said extent and the Insurance Company can not make recovery of the awarded amount from the appellants, i.e., the owner and driver. No order as to costs.
10. Statutory deposit made before this court and any other amount deposited by the appellants, under any order passed by this court in this appeal, shall be released in favour of the appellant(s) and paid and transferred in the account of the concerned appellants in accordance with law forthwith and within 4 weeks from today.
11. The record of the trial court shall also be returned within the aforesaid period.
(Rajnish Kumar, J.)
Order Date :- 15.1.2025
A.Nigam
