Aripaka Suryanarayanacharyulu vs Pinisetti Srinivas 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2282 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.950 of 2013


JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.71 of 2010 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District

Court, Amalapuram and the respondents are the respondents in the

said case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are

arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents by praying the Tribunal

to award an amount of Rs.2,56,500/- towards compensation for the

injuries received by the petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident

occurred on 09.07.2007.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

On 09.07.2007 at about 7.30 a.m. while the petitioner was

returning from Razole and when the petitioner reached near the

house of Mutyala Narayana Murthy, Podalada village, the driver of VGKRJ MACMA 950 of 2013 Page 2 of 9 Dt:25.04.2023

Bajaj Minidor bearing No.AP 07W 4148 drove the same in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, resulting

which, the petitioner sustained fracture injuries and the petitioner

claimed an amount of Rs.2,56,500/- towards compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second and third

respondents filed their counters separately denying the claim

application and contended that the claimant is not entitled any

compensation and the second and third respondents are not liable

to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., Bajaj Minidor bearing No.AP 7W 4148 by its driver 1st respondent? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

iii. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to PW5 were examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 were marked. On behalf of VGKRJ MACMA 950 of 2013 Page 3 of 9 Dt:25.04.2023

respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2

were marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has

given a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an

amount of Rs.43,000/- to the claimant towards compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal

by claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

2. Whether the claimant/ appellant is entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

Basing on material on record, the learned Tribunal came to

conclusion that the third respondent is not liable to pay the

compensation and the claimant is entitled to receive the

compensation from the first and second respondents only. As per

the evidence on record and basing on the documentary evidence VGKRJ MACMA 950 of 2013 Page 4 of 9 Dt:25.04.2023

i.e., Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report, the learned

Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident was occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bajaj Minidor bearing

No.AP 07W 4148. The evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 clearly

goes to show that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, it

is clear that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of 1st respondent.

12. As per the evidence available on record, the petitioner

sustained five simple injuries and one grievous injury and the

learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards one

grievous injury and Rs.15,000/- for five simple injuries @ Rs.3,000/-

for each simple injury and the learned Tribunal also granted amount

of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings for two months (@ Rs.3,000/-

per month), Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/-

towards pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal by giving cogent

reasons, awarded total compensation of Rs.43,000/- to the claimant

from the first and second respondents only.

 VGKRJ                                            MACMA 950 of 2013
Page 5 of 9                                      Dt:25.04.2023

13. It is argued by the learned counsel for Insurance company that

by the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle is having

driving licence to drive the motor cycle with gear and Light Motor

Vehicle only, so that he is not competent to drive the questioned

auto.

14. On considering the entire record, the Tribunal came to

conclusion that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a

valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and the

driver of the auto possessed driving licence of Light Motor Vehicle

and transport endorsement is not there and that the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Here the crime

vehicle auto is insured with 3rd respondent/ Insurance Company and

the policy is also on force under Ex.B1. As per Ex.X4, the first

respondent possess driving license of Light Motor Vehicle. Here the

crime vehicle is light motor vehicle auto.

15. In a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund

Dewangan Vs. Oriental insurance Company Limited1 held that

2017 SAR (Civil) 1008 VGKRJ MACMA 950 of 2013 Page 6 of 9 Dt:25.04.2023

'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 section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not exclude from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amended Act No.54/1994.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India further held that:

The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act.54/1994 w.e.f., 14-11-1994 while substituting classes (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f) , heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the afore said substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(20)(e) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e., light motor vehicle.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India further held that:

The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continuous to be the same as it was and has been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle or such class without any endorsement to that effect."

Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, the driving licence of 1st respondent is

sufficient to drive the crime vehicle/auto and transport endorsement

is not required. Therefore, objection taken by the 3rd respondent/

Insurance Company cannot be accepted.

 VGKRJ                                                    MACMA 950 of 2013
Page 7 of 9                                              Dt:25.04.2023

16. Here with regard to the transport and non-transport driving

licence, the Government of India addressed a letter to all the

Principal Secretaries and DGP's of all the State Governments vide

letter dated 16.04.2018 vide RT-11021/44/2017-MVL. In the said

letter, the Government of India clearly stated that in compliance of

the judgment dated 03.07.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011 in Mukund Dewangan Vs.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited:

In view of the legal position as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Judgment, the requirement under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to obtain the transport licence would arise in case of medium/ heavy goods and passenger vehicles only. No other vehicle will require any separate endorsement, even if they are used for commercial purposes. The exemption from the requirement to obtain the endorsement for commercial vehicles would apply to following vehicles:

          i.    Motor cycle without gear
          ii.   Motor cycle with gear

iii. Light Motor Vehicle (goods/ passenger) iv. e-rickshaw/ e-cart

Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the first respondent is

having valid and effective driving licence to drive the crime vehicle/

auto on the date of accident. Since the crime vehicle is insured with VGKRJ MACMA 950 of 2013 Page 8 of 9 Dt:25.04.2023

the third respondent/ Insurance Company, the third respondent /

Insurance company is also liable to pay the compensation.

17. In the result, this appeal is disposed of, by modifying the order

dated 28.01.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.71 of 2010 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court,

Amalapuram. It is held that the appellant is entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.43,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date

of petition, till the date of payment from the respondents 1 to 3. The

respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the balance amount

within one month from the date of this judgment. On such deposit,

the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued

interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated: 25.04.2023.

Sj
 VGKRJ                                    MACMA 950 of 2013
Page 9 of 9                              Dt:25.04.2023






          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




                   M.A.C.M.A.No.950 of 2013



                          25.04.2023

sj