Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Sukhdev Singh & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 6961 Del

$ 7
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision: 5th December, 2012
+        MAC. APP. 232/2010

         ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
                       Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate.

                        Versus

         SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                      Through:           None

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                 JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The question involved in this Appeal centres around the liability of the Appellant Insurance Company to indemnify the insured.

2. A compensation of `95,878/- was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 18.07.2006. The driver of the offending vehicle (Respondent No.2 herein) was driving a two-wheeler No.DL-5SV-3258 which caused the accident. He (Respondent No.2) was holding a licence to drive only an LMV. He did not possess any driving licence to drive a two-wheeler. The Claims Tribunal, however, held that since an LMV was a heavier vehicle, it included a lower category of vehicle and thus held that on the strength of a licence to drive LMV the driver could drive a two-wheeler and thus made the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.

3. A notice Ex.R3W1/B was served upon the driver and the owner to produce the driving licence and the insurance policy. R3W1 Gaurav Malhotra proved the certificate of insurance Ex.R3W1/A and the charge sheet Ex.R3W1/C. He, further, proved that the driver possessed a driving licence to drive LMV only. The Claims Tribunal held as under:

"24. Ld. Counsel on behalf of R-3 Insurance Company submitted that R1 was having the D/L to drive LMV which does not include the motorcycle. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel on behalf of R2 submitted that LMV includes motorcycle and therefore, the driver was driving the vehicle with proper driving licence.

25. The terms and conditions of policy provides that the driver of the vehicle should have valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle but it cannot be said that if the driver is holding the driving license to drive LMV, he cannot drive the motorcycle. The category of the vehicle always include smaller category of the vehicle, which a person can drive. Therefore, I am of the opinion that driver was holding the effective and valid driving license, at the time of the accident."

4. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act) lays down the classes of the driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority, which is extracted hereunder:-

"10. 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; 1[(e) transport vehicle;]

(i) road-roller;

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description."

5. It is no longer res integra that a person must possess a driving licence in respect of the class of vehicle which he wants to drive. From a bare reading of Section 10 of the Act, it is clear that licence for a motor cycle is for a separate class of vehicle than for an LMV. A person possessing a licence for LMV or even for a transport vehicle may not be competent to drive a two wheeler. On the strength of a licence to drive LMV, a person cannot be said to possess a valid licence to drive a two-wheeler. The Claims Tribunal erred in holding that a person possessing a licence for LMV was permitted to drive a two-wheeler as two-wheeler was a smaller category of vehicle. Thus, the Appellant Insurance Company proved that the offending vehicle No. DL-5SV-

3258 which met with the accident causing injuries to the Respondent No.1 was being driven by the Respondent No.2 without a valid and effective driving licence. In spite of the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC, the owner (Respondent No.3) has not come forward to give any explanation as to the circumstances under which the two-wheeler was handed over to the Respondent No.2 or came in his possession. Thus, the Insurance Company, though would be bound to perform its statutory liability in paying the compensation to the third party, would be entitled to recover the same from the driver and the owner of the vehicle. (United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors.,

(2003) 3 SCC 338 & Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC

21).

6. Thus, the Appellant Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the amount of compensation paid to the First Respondent from Respondent No.2, the principal tortfeasor and the Respondent No.3, the owner of the offending vehicle, in execution of this very judgment without having recourse to independent recovery proceedings.

7. The compensation amount deposited shall be released in favour of the First Respondent in terms of the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal.

8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

9. Statutory amount of `25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

10. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 05, 2012 pst