Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Aksharabharathi Educational ... vs Apini Nagaraju Another on 13 September, 2023

Bench: Venuthurumalli Gopala Rao

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

          M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 2638 of 2012 and 819 of 2014

COMMON JUDGMENT:

      Aggrieved against the award dated 10.05.2012 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District

Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, in M.V.O.P.No.570 of 2010, the

petitioner preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.2638 of 2012 while the 1 st

respondent/owner filed M.A.C.M.A.No.819 of 2014 questioning the

exoneration of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company from the

liability of payment of compensation to the petitioner.


2.    Since both the appeals arose from out of one decree and

order passed in M.V.O.P.No.570 of 2010, they are heard together

and are being disposed of by this common judgment.


3.    For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeals

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


4.    The claim petitioner filed the petition under Sections 140, 163-

A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents
                                    2
                                                                          VGKR,J
                                                MACMA.Nos.2638/2012 and 819/2014


claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by

him in a road accident that took place on 21.01.2010.


5.    Facts

germane to dispose of the appeals may briefly be stated

as follows:

On 21.01.2010 at about 2.15 p.m. the petitioner along with

another person was traveling on a motor cycle from Kamma

Kalyanamandapam to his house and when they reached near

Bapatla Telephone Exchange Office, one school van bearing

registration No.AP 04T 4812 being driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner with high speed without following traffic rules and

without blowing horn came in opposite direction and dashed the

motor cycle of the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner fell down and

sustained grievous injuries. The S.H.O., Bapatla P.S. registered a

case in Crime No.15 of 2010 against the driver of the offending

school van for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C.

The 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being

the insurer of the offending van are jointly and severally liable for

payment of compensation to the petitioner.

VGKR,J MACMA.Nos.2638/2012 and 819/2014

6. The 1st respondent's right to file a written statement was

forfeited. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written

statement by denying the material averments made in the claim

petition. It is pleaded that the offending van was not legally and

validly insured with the Insurance company on the date of accident

and the compensation claimed is highly excessive.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were

framed for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the school van bearing No.AP 4T 4812?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

3) To what relief?

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

the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 and

Exs.X.1 to X.9 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd

respondent/Insurance company, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and

Exs.B.1 and B.2 and Exs.X.10 and X.11 were marked.

VGKR,J MACMA.Nos.2638/2012 and 819/2014

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending school van and accordingly, allowed the petition in part

and granted a total compensation of Rs.2,01,581/- with

proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of

petition till the date of payment against the 1st respondent/owner

only and dismissed the claim petition against the 2nd

respondent/Insurance company. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.2638 of 2012 while the 1st

respondent/owner filed M.A.C.M.A.No.819 of 2014.

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

record.

11. At the time of hearing, learned counsels for the appellants

confined their arguments only to the aspect of exoneration of the 2nd

respondent/Insurance company from payment of compensation to

the petitioner. Although the appeals have been filed on the other

VGKR,J MACMA.Nos.2638/2012 and 819/2014

grounds, the appellants did not press the said grounds during the

course of arguments in the appeals.

12. Therefore, the only legal ground that has to be considered in

these appeals is, whether the exoneration of the Insurance company

from payment of compensation to the petitioner is legally

sustainable or not?

13. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent/owner insured the

offending school van with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company

under Ex.B.1-policy and the policy was in force as on the date of

accident. It is a fact that the offending vehicle is a school van and

its weight is less than 7500 kgs.

14. In order to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was

not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident,

the 2nd respondent/Insurance company got examined its Legal

Executive as R.W.1, the Official of the R.T.A. Office as R.W.2 and

the driver of the offending school van as R.W.3 and relied on Ex.B.2.

R.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the offending school

VGKR,J MACMA.Nos.2638/2012 and 819/2014

van comes under the category of light motor vehicle. R.W.2

admitted in his cross-examination that the driver of the offending

school van possessed L.M.V. non-transport, AR non-transport and

motor cycle with gear driving licence; if the unladen weight of a

vehicle is below 6500 kgs., it comes under the classification of a

light motor vehicle; and as per R.C. of the offending school van, the

unladen weight of the said vehicle is 1750 kgs. and the gross weight

is 4290 kgs. R.W.3 categorically admitted in his evidence that he

got driving licence to drive AR LMV MCWG of non-transport and he

did not obtain transport driving licence. As per Ex.B.2, the driver of

the offending school van was holding LMV non-transport driving

licence. The evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.B.2 clearly

goes to reveal that the gross weight of the offending vehicle is 4290

kgs., therefore, it comes under the category of a light motor vehicle,

and the driver of the offending vehicle was holding LMV non-

transport driving licence.

15. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the

appellant/1st respondent-owner on a three-Judge Bench of the

VGKR,J MACMA.Nos.2638/2012 and 819/2014

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Limited1 wherein it is held as under:

"14. The definition of light motor vehicle' makes it clear that for 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 kgs. 'Gross vehicle weight' has been defined in Section 2(15). The motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as defined in Section 2(48) of the Act, are also the light motor vehicle. No change has been made by Amendment Act of 54/94 in the provisions contained in Sections 2(21) and 10(2)(d) relating to the light motor vehicle. The definition of light motor vehicle' has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with Section 10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly clear that 'light motor vehicle' is also a 'transport vehicle', the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as specified in the provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as specified in Section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of Section 3 of the Act requires that a person in order to drive a 'transport vehicle' must have authorization. Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor, the unladen weight of which, as the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg. The insertion of transport vehicle' category in Section 10(2)(e) has no effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of the class of light motor vehicle. A distinction is made in the Act of heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on the basis of 'gross vehicle weight' or 'unladen weight' for heavy passenger motor vehicle, heavy

(2017) 14 SCC 663

VGKR,J MACMA.Nos.2638/2012 and 819/2014

goods vehicle, the weight, as the case may be, exceed 12000 kg. Medium goods vehicle shall mean any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle; whereas 'medium passenger motor vehicle' means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a motorcycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle.

46 (i). '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 excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No. 54/1994. 46 (ii). 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. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued Under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form."

16. In Jagdish Kumar Sood Vs. United India Insurance Co.

Ltd.2, another three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court has applied the

decision in Mukund Dewangan referred supra. In the said case, it

is held thus:

AIR 2018 SC 2906

VGKR,J MACMA.Nos.2638/2012 and 819/2014

"2. The Tribunal absolved the insurer on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident was a Light Goods Vehicle.

The driver had a licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle. The Tribunal held that in the absence of a specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle, the liability could not be fastened on the insurer. The Tribunal directed the insurer to pay in the first instance and allowed it to recover the compensation from the driver and the owner. The present appeal has been filed by the owner.

3. The High Court, while enhancing the compensation did not interfere with the order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer.

4. The issue which arises before the Court is not res integra and is covered by a judgment of a three Judges of this Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663 in which it has been inter alia held as follows:

60.1. "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 Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994. (Id at page 709) 60.2. 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. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued Under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3- 2001 in the form. (Id at page 710)

VGKR,J MACMA.Nos.2638/2012 and 819/2014

5. Having regard to the above position, the Civil Appeal will have to be allowed.

6. The appeal is allowed, the order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer shall accordingly stand set aside. The liability shall jointly and severally be fastened on the insurer, in addition to the owner and driver. There shall be no order as to costs."

17. For the foregoing discussion and since the offending school

van of the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent/

Insurance company under Ex.B.1 policy and the policy was also in

force as on the date of the accident and on considering the decision

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdish Kumar Sood (2 supra), I am

of the considered opinion that both the respondents are liable to pay

the compensation to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent being the

insurer of the offending school van is liable to indemnify the 1 st

respondent/owner.

18. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.2,01,581/- with

costs and interest as ordered by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal