National Insurance Company ... vs Poonam And Ors.
2000 Latest Caselaw 1189 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Kapoor, J.

1. In this case, the short question relates to whether on the date of accident while driving Tempo No. HYJ - 1166, the driver Anil Kumar was having a valid driving licence. This offending vehicle is a tempo Tata 407 which was being used for transporting goods.

2. There is no dispute in between the parties to the effect that licence No. 37988/RSD issued to Anil Kumar on 13th September 1993 for driving a scooter/motor cycle/car/jeep. This fact was proved by Vijender Singh, clerk from Licensing Authority, Rohtak who verified the licence. This fact is also supported by RW-1, Mr. R.K. Bahl, AO of National Insurance Co. There is also no dispute about the fact that an endorsement was made on this driving licence for driving Light Transport Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as 'LTV' for short) as well on 30th July, 1996 vide Ex. RW-1/3.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that this driving licence could not be used for driving the vehicle in question.

4. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short) before its amendment which came into force on 1st July 1989 reads as under :

"Form and contents of licences to drive -- (1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:--

(a) motor cycle without gear ;

(b) motor cycle with gear ;

(c) invalid carriage;

(d) light motor vehicle ;

(e) medium goods vehicle ;

(f) medium passenger motor vehicle ;

(g) heavy goods vehicle ;

(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle ;

(i) road-roller;

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description."

5. This Sub-section (2) of Section 10 does not refer to car or jeep. The transport vehicle was inserted in this Clause (c) Sub-section (2) of Section 10 with effect from 14th November, 1994. Consequently, on the date of accident, i.e., on 10th November, 1994 the vehicle could not be classified as a transport vehicle.

6. In the aforesaid light, it is required to be seen whether the motor car/jeep would include a vehicle Tata 407.

7. Sub-section (25) of Section 2 of the Act defines motorcab to mean "any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than 6 passengers excluding driver for hire or reward." Since it is not the case of the respondents that passengers were being carried and seeing the nature of the vehicle it is evident that it could only be used for the purpose of transporting goods. The Vehicle would not be-covered within the definition of motorcab. The terra "jeep" has not been defined. In this context when permission is granted to drive a car and jeep, it is required to be seen under which category the licence could have been granted within the meaning of Section 10.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that there had been legislative changes in the Motor Vehicles Act and earlier three was no definition of Light Transport Vehicle. The category of transport vehicle has been inserted with effect from 14th November, 1994 while the date of accident is 10th November, 1994. Consequently, at that time any licence which was meant for that motor car or jeep was meant to drive Light Motor Vehicle and as such, it was sufficient to drive a tempo, for there was no specific classification for transport vehicle.

9. Coming to the question of light motor vehicle, Sub-section (21) of Section 2 defines light motor vehicle before amendment to mean "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 or any of which does not exceed 6000 Kilograms." So, the car as well as jeep would fall in the category of LMV only. In absence of any categorisation in LMV between passenger and transport vehicle on 10th November 1994, it had to be presumed that the driver was holding a licence for running a light motor vehicle which could be a transport vehicle also if weight of the vehicle is less than 6000 kilograms.

10. It is not in dispute in view of the insurance policy that the vehicle was 'Tata 407' four wheeler and that it was open body vehicle. The gross vehicle weight of this vehicle whether it is open body or covered body vehicle, it would not be more than 5000 kilograms.

11. It may also be mentioned that the Section as it existed before 14th November 1994, included Medium Goods Vehicle and Heavy Goods Vehicle. Medium Goods Vehicle were defined in Section 2(23) to mean "any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle". Heavy Goods Vehicle was defined in Section 2(16) as "any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms". Naturally, the Tata 407 would not fall within the definition of Medium Goods Vehicle or Heavy Goods Vehicle. Consequently, the vehicle is a light motor vehicle within the definition of Clause (21) of Section 2.

12. The moment it is noticed that three was no classification in light motor vehicle between passenger and transport vehicle, the fact that it was not mentioned that the driver was entitled to ply a transport vehicle, is altogether immaterial. It became material only after 14th November, 1994 after the amendment was inserted in Section 10. Since there was no other classified to classify 'Tata 407' tempo or car or jeep it has to be treated as a licence for LM V under Clause (21) of Section 2 as it stood before 14th November, 1994. If one looks into the question of validity of the licence to ply the vehicle in the light of discussions herein above, it becomes difficult to accept submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Anil Kumar was not having proper licence to ply the vehicle.

13. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of definite view that the appellant National Insurance Company cannot avoid payment of compensation awarded in favour of respondent No. 1. There does not appear any force in this appeal and it is disposed of accordingly. The amount which has been deposited may be paid in terms of the award of the learned trial court.