Shriram General Insurance Company ... vs Mamidupudi Syamalamma,
2024 Latest Caselaw 5118 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Shriram General Insurance Company ... vs Mamidupudi Syamalamma, on 4 July, 2024

                                                                       I




             HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

          MAIN CASE No: M.A.C.M.A.No.54 OF 2024

                        PROCEEDING SHEET

SL.     DATE                            ORDER                              OFFICE
NO.                                                                         NOTE
                   RNT,J & VN,J
4.    04.07.2024
                          Ms. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the
                   appellant submits that the lorry was handed
                   over to the driver by the owner whereas the
                   driver of the offending vehicle was not having
                   valid driving licence to drive as it was a heavy
                   goods vehicle.     She has referred to Ex.X2,
                   which was filed before the Tribunal.           She
                   submits that there was violation of the terms
                   and conditions of the licence. The Insurance
                   Company would not be liable to compensate
                   and the liability, if any, would be of the owner.
                   2.     Sri M. S. R. Chandra Murthy, learned
                   counsel     appearing     for    the    claimants/
                   respondents who have applied for vacation of

the interim order dated 15.02.2024, submits that a driver having the driving licence of LMV, under law is entitled to drive even the transport vehicle of the same category. In this respect, reliance has been placed on the judgments in

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE the cases of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. Karantoth Salamma and others 2 and National Insurance Company Limited, Guntur vs. Ramavath Papa and others3.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the weight of the Mini Lorry vehicle as the offending vehicle lorry would be 1700 Kgs and the same comes under the Light Motor Vehicle (transport) as it would not exceed 7500 Kgs.

4. The Tribunal has relied upon Ex.X2 to hold that the vehicle was heavy goods vehicle. The Tribunal has also held that the driver was competent to drive that vehicle, having got the LMV licence.

5. Prima facie, we are of the view that:

i. if the offending vehicle is heavy goods vehicle and not LMV (as per Ex.X2) how the driver was competent under his licence for LMV to drive heavy goods vehicle and

(2017) Lawsuit (SC) 735

2022 (2) ALD 464 (TS) (DB)

2022 (6) ALD 626 (AP)

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE ii. if the offending vehicle Mini lorry's weight does not exceed 7500 Kgs how it could be heavy goods vehicle and how Ex.X2 was issued.

6. Summon the record urgently before the next date. If required through special messenger.

7. List on 11.07.2024.

8. The application for vacation of the interim order will be considered on the next date. The appeal itself may be decided finally.

________ RNT,J

________ VN,J

Scs