Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Swaran Lata Parida & Ors on 7 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:7th May, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.144/2006
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Vishnu Mehra with
Ms. Shakshi Gupta, Advocates
Versus
SWARAN LATA PARIDA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns a
judgment dated 15.10.2005 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal)whereby while awarding a
compensation of `3,46,400/-, the Appellant's contention that the
driver Umesh Chand did not possess a valid driving licence to
drive the offending vehicle No.HR-26A-8686( a tempo) was
rejected.
2. The learned counsel for the Appellant contends that there is a
distinction between LMV (transport) and LMV(non-transport).
Since the Respondent No.5 (the driver) possessed a licence to
drive only LMV (non-transport) and not a transport vehicle, he
was not competent to drive a tempo and thus, the Appellant was
entitled to be exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured.
In any case, the Appellant was entitled to recovery rights.
3. In this case, the accident took place on 01.02.1996. The Central
Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, Form 4 was amended with effect
from 28.03.2001. The Appeal is squarely covered by a report of
the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 464. The
Supreme Court held that in the Form 4, transport vehicle was
substituted for medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle
by GSR 221(E) with effect from 28.03.2001. Before that
amendment, light motor vehicle included a light passenger
carriage vehicle as well as light goods carriage vehicle. Paras
17 to 20 of the report are extracted hereunder:
"17. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in
Form 4, for a licence to drive a motor vehicle,
categorizing the same in nine types of vehicles.
18. Clause (e) provides for "transport vehicle" which
has been substituted by GSR 221(E) with effect from 28-
3-2001. Before the amendment in 2001, the entries
"medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle"
existed which have been substituted by "transport
vehicle". As noticed hereinbefore, "light motor
vehicles" also found place therein.
19."Light motor vehicle" is defined in Section 2(21) and,
therefore, in view of the provision, as then existed, it
included a light transport vehicle. Form 6 provides for
the manner in which the licence is to be granted, the
relevant portion whereof reads as under:
"Authorisation to drive transport vehicle
Number......... Date.....
Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect from...
Badge number..........
Signature
Designation of the licensing
authority
Name and designation of the authority who
Conducted the driving test."
20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is
evident that "transport vehicle" has now been substituted
for "medium goods vehicle" and heavy goods vehicle."
A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor
vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods
vehicle as well."
4. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No.5 did possess a valid
licence to drive an LMV on the date of the accident i.e.
01.02.1996 which entitled him to drive the light goods carriage
vehicle as well, which is the vehicle involved in the accident.
5. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly
dismissed.
6. The statutory amount of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 07, 2012
pst
