Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Amresh Kumar & Ors on 11 December, 2017
$~R-691
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th December, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 1277/2012 and CM 20928/2012 and
20929/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
versus
AMRESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On the motor vehicular accident that occurred on 27.03.2011,
giving rise to a cause of action to claim compensation in favour of the
first respondent (claimant) by instituting accident claim case (suit
no.95/2011), involving negligent driving of a motorcycle bearing
registration no.DL-3S-AZ-1477 (motorcycle) by the second
respondent (driver), it being a vehicle registered in the name of the
third respondent (owner) at whose instance the appellant (insurer) had
issued the insurance policy covering third party risk for the period in
question, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by its
judgment dated 18.08.2012, awarded compensation in favour of the
claimant and directed the insurer to pay. It is noted that the insurer
while putting in contest had taken the defence that it could not be held
liable as the driving licence held by the second respondent was valid
only for a light motor vehicle (LMV), it not being valid for purposes
of a motorcycle, a distinct category of motor vehicle. The tribunal,
however, rejected this plea.
2. The appeal at hand is pressed only to seek recovery rights
against the second or third respondents.
3. The appeal was put in the list of 'Regulars' as per order dated
14.07.2015. When it is called out in its own turn, there is no
appearance on behalf of the second or third respondents. The learned
counsel for the insurer has been heard and with his assistance the
record perused.
4. It is noted that the expression 'motorcycle' is defined by
Section 2(27) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as a two wheeled
motor vehicle whereas light motor vehicle (LMV) is a distinct
category of vehicle covered by the definition given in Section 2(21) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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 of any of which does not exceed 7500
kg. The provision for issuance of licence is governed by Section 10 of
the Motor Vehicles Act which treats a light motor vehicle separately
as compared to a motor vehicle in the nature of a motorcycle (with or
without gear). The motor vehicle in the nature of a motorcycle being a
two wheeler motor vehicle definitely requires a different kind of skill
to drive as compared to a light motor vehicle (generally speaking),
which category is inclusive of four wheeled vehicles, the former by its
very nature being unwieldy. The licence for LMV obviously cannot
be valid or effective for purposes of a motorcycle. This is the view
taken by this court in earlier decisions including in National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi and Ors., MACA 278/2009, decided on
17.07.2017.
5. In the above facts and circumstances, the prayer of the
insurance company for grant of recovery rights is granted against the
second and third respondents. For enforcement of such rights, the
insurer may take out appropriate proceedings before the tribunal.
6. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the insurance
company.
7. The appeal and the pending applications are disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 11, 2017
yg
