Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sanjaybhai Manjibhai Dabhi on 24 February, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/4956/2018 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4956 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
SANJAYBHAI MANJIBHAI DABHI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 24/02/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the
judgment and award dated 15.9.2018 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Rajkot in MACP No.880/11, the appellant-
insurance Company has preferred this appeal
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
C/FA/4956/2018 JUDGMENT
2. Following facts emerge from the record of the
appeal:
That, the accident occurred on 24.4.2011. It
is the case of the original claimant that the
he was traveling in rickshaw bearing
registration no. GJ3 X1440 and the said
rickshaw met with an accident with other
rickshaw bearing registration no. GRP 6854. As
per the record, the original claimant
sustained grievous injuries. The claim
petition was filed by the respondent
original claimant under Section 163A of the
Act and claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/.
Oral evidence of the original claimant was led
at Exh.27. The documentary evidence were also
relied upon, such as, FIR Exh.34, Panchama
Exh.35, injury certificate Exh.36, charge
sheet Exh.37, R.C. Book of rickshaw bearing
registration no. GJ3 X1440 Exh.38, R.C.Book
of rickshaw bearing registration no. GRP 6854
Exh.39, insurance policy of rickshaw bearing
registration no. GRP 6854 Exh.40, disability
certificate issued by Dr. Chauhan Exh.30,
school leaving certificate Exh.31, salary slip
for the month of March, 2011 Exh.32 and salary
slip for the month of April, 2011 Exh.33. The
Tribunal, considering the disability of the
body as a whole to the extent of 10%, assessed
the monthly income of the original claimant at
C/FA/4956/2018 JUDGMENT
Rs.3,971/ and as the original claimant was 40
years old, applied multiplier of 15 and
awarded compensation of Rs.71,478/ under the
head of loss of amenities. The Tribunal has
also awarded Rs.10,500/ under the head of
pain, shock and suffering and Rs.7,500/
towards attendance charges, transportation and
special diet and in all, awarded compensation
of Rs.88,978/ from the date of filing of the
claim petition till its realization while
partly allowing the claim petition. Being
aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
filed by the appellant - insurance Company.
3. Heard Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for
the appellant. Though served, no one appears
for the other respondents.
4. Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the
appellant has raised a sole ground that the
driver of the rickshaw did not possess a valid
and effective license and there was no
endorsement of transport vehicle in the
license possessed by the driver of rickshaw.
On the aforesaid ground, it was contended by
Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the
appellant that the appeal may be allowed and
the impugned judgment and award may be quashed
and set aside.
C/FA/4956/2018 JUDGMENT
5. No other or further submissions, grounds
and/or contentions are made by Mr. Mazmudar,
learned advocate for the applicant.
6. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record,
it appears that the license possessed by the
driver of the rickshaw was a valid and
effective, but for the Light Motor Vehicle.
The contention raised by Mr. Mazmudar, learned
advocate for the appellant is covered by the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663, wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:
"60. Thus we answer the
questions which are referred to us
thus:
60.1 "Light motor vehicle" as
defined in section 2(21) of the Act
would include a transport vehicle as
per the weight prescribed in section
2(21) read with section 2(15) and
2(48). Such transport vehicles are
not excluded from the definition of
the light motor vehicle by virtue of
Amendment Act No.54/1994.
60.2 A transport vehicle and
omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of
either of which does not exceed 7500
kg. would be a light motor vehicle
and also motor car or tractor or a
road roller, 'unladen weight' of
which does not exceed 7500 kg. and
holder of a driving licence to drive
C/FA/4956/2018 JUDGMENT
class of "light motor vehicle" as
provided in section 10(2)(d) is
competent to drive a transport
vehicle or omnibus, the gross
vehicle weight of which does not
exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or
tractor or roadroller, the "unladen
weight" of which does not exceed
7500 kg. That is to say, no separate
endorsement on the licence is
required to drive a transport
vehicle of light motor vehicle class
as enumerated above. A licence
issued under section 10(2)(d)
continues to be valid after
Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001
in the form.
60.3 The effect of the amendment
made by virtue of Act No.54/1994
w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting
clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2)
which contained "medium goods
vehicle" in section 10(2)(e), medium
passenger motor vehicle in section
10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in
section 10(2)(g) and "heavy
passenger motor vehicle" in section
10(2)(h) with expression 'transport
vehicle' as substituted in section
10(2)(e) related only to the
aforesaid substituted classes only.
It does not exclude transport
vehicle, from the purview of section
10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the
Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
60.4 The effect of amendment of
Form 4 by insertion of "transport
vehicle" is related only to the
categories which were substituted in
the year 1994 and the procedure to
obtain driving licence for transport
vehicle of class of "light motor
C/FA/4956/2018 JUDGMENT
vehicle" continues to be the same as
it was and has not been changed and
there is no requirement to obtain
separate endorsement to drive
transport vehicle, and if a driver
is holding licence to drive light
motor vehicle, he can drive
transport vehicle of such class
without any endorsement to that
effect."
7. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the
appellant that the driver of the rickshaw did
not have any license. The contention raised is
that the license possessed by the driver of
the rickshaw in fact permitted only to drive
Light Motor Vehicle and there was no
endorsement of transport vehicle. In view of
the binding decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the
said contention deserves to be negatived.
8. The appeal therefore fails and is hereby
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as
to costs. Registry is directed to send the
original record and proceedings back to the
Tribunal forthwith.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J)
MRP
