Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Hazara & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3782 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of Judgment: 05.08.2011
+ MAC. APP. Nos. 68/2011

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.            ...........Appellant
                 Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate  ,

                    Versus

HAZARA & ORS.                                    ..........Respondents
                           Through:   Mr. Paramjeet Singh, Advocate
                                      for respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

+ MAC. APP. No. 70/2011

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.                       ...........Appellant
                       Through:       Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate ,

                    Versus

RIZWAN & ORS.
                           Through:   Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate
                                      for the respondent No. 1.
                                      Mr. Paramjeet Singh, Advocate
                                      for respondent Nos. 2 to 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The award impugned is the award dated 27.10.2010 vide

which compensation in the sum of ` 4,94,500/- alongwith interest

@ 7.5% per annum had been awarded in favour of the claimants.

2. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

Insurance Company has no grievance against the claim awarded

in favour of the claimants. Its grievance is that the recovery rights

have not been awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant

and against the owners.

3. Certain facts are undisputed; the offending vehicle i.e. DL-

1LD-3186, as per the registration certificate shows that it was a

light goods vehicle. The driving licence Ex.R3W1 shows that the

licence has been granted for driving light motor vehicles.

Contention of the respondent/owner is that the word PROF. has

been written alongtherewith meaning thereby that it's a

professional licence which had been granted to the driver

permitting him to drive a light goods vehicle as well. Today he has

also placed on record a communication from the District

Transport Officer wherein the type of licence issued to the driver

(Pradeep Kumar Yadav) shows that it was a professional licence.

Vehement contention of the respondent is that being a

professional licence, it has necessarily to be construed as a

licence permitting him to drive a light goods vehicles as well and

there is no breach of the terms of the policy as has been

contended by the appellant.

4. This court is not in agreement with this argument of the

learned counsel for the respondent. Section 3 of the Motor

Vehicles Act reads as under:-

"Section 3 Sub-clause (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 1[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 7] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do."

5. Driving licence of the driver was for driving a light motor

vehicle. In no manner can it be said that a light motor vehicle can

be equated with a light goods vehicle. In this scenario, it is clear

that there was a breach of the policy condition and driver of the

vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the

time of the accident. Recovery rights should have been granted by

the Tribunal against the owner. The award is modified. Recovery

rights are granted in favour of the Insurance Company.

6. Appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

AUGUST 05, 2011 rb