The vs Supreme Court Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 3553 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No. 265 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the claim petitioner and the respondents are

respondents in M.V.O.P.No.772 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will

be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.

3. The claim petitioner filed the petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-

for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took

place on 05.12.2004.

4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as

follows:

On 05.12.2004 while the petitioner was proceeding to

Visakhapatnam from Chodavaram on his Bajaj Boxer bearing 2 VGKRJ MACMA 265 of 2012

registration No.AP 31AD 1202 and when he reached near Pinagadi

railway gate junction at about 12.15 p.m., an auto rickshaw bearing

No.AP 31U 4386, driven by the first respondent, coming in his

opposite direction with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner,

dashed against the petitioner, resulting which the petitioner fell down

and received injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second

respondent filed counter denying the claim application and

contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and

the second respondent is 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 auto bearing registration No.AP 31U 4386?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation amount? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

                                 3                             VGKRJ
                                                   MACMA 265 of 2012




iii.   To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf

of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8

were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW1 and RW2 were

examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal

has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimant towards

compensation from the respondent No.1 and claim against the

respondent No.2/Insurance Company is dismissed. Aggrieved

against the exoneration of the Insurance company from the liability

of payment of the compensation amount, the appellant/petitioner

preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the

record.

                                  4                               VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA 265 of 2012




10.   At   the   time   of   hearing,    learned     counsel   for   the

appellant/petitioner has confined his arguments only to the aspect of

fixation of liability for payment of compensation.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court?

12. POINT: The Tribunal, on considering the material available

on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending auto and allowed the petition in

part awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner against

respondent No.1, while dismissing the petition against the 2nd

respondent/Insurance company.

13. Since the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has

confined his arguments only to the aspect of fixation of liability for

payment of compensation, there is no need to interfere with the

findings recorded by the Tribunal on the other aspects of proving of

accident and awarding of compensation.

                                     5                            VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA 265 of 2012

14. The learned counsel for Insurance Company argued that the

driver of crime vehicle possessed driving licence of non-transport

only on the date of accident, but the crime vehicle is a transport auto.

15. 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

non-Transport, but the offending auto is Light Motor Vehicle

transport and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the

compensation. Here the crime vehicle auto is insured with 2nd

respondent/ Insurance Company and the policy is also in force

under Ex.B1. As per Ex.X1, the first respondent possess driving

license of Light Motor Vehicle non-transport. Here the offending

vehicle is Light Motor Vehicle Transport.

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

Dewangan Vs. Oriental insurance Company Limited 1 it is held

that:

2017 SAR (Civil) 1008 6 VGKRJ MACMA 265 of 2012

'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 2nd respondent/

Insurance Company cannot be accepted.

                                       7                             VGKRJ
                                                         MACMA 265 of 2012

17. 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 offending

vehicle/ auto on the date of accident. Since the offending vehicle is 8 VGKRJ MACMA 265 of 2012

insured with the second respondent/ Insurance Company, the

second respondent / Insurance company is liable to pay the

compensation.

18. In the result, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the order

dated 11.05.207 passed in M.V.O.P.No.772 of 2005 on the file of

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

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

compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date

of petition, till the date of payment by the respondent No.2. The

respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount,

within two months from the date of this judgment, before the

Tribunal. 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: 19.07.2023.

Sj
                        9                            VGKRJ
                                         MACMA 265 of 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.265 of 2012

19.07.2023

sj