Gujarat High Court
New United India Insurance Co Ltd. vs Ratanbhai Kanjibhai Rathod Legal ... on 24 February, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/1601/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1601 of 2015
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 ?
==========================================================
NEW UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.
Versus
RATANBHAI KANJIBHAI RATHOD LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED DILIP
ALIAS DINESHBHAI KANJIBHAI RATHOD & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
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 27.4.2015 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
C/FA/1601/2015 JUDGMENT
Rajkot in MACP No.879/11, the appellant-
insurance Company has preferred this appeal
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
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 claimants that the
deceased-Dilipbhai was traveling in Chhakdo
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 deceased
sustained serious injuries and succumbed to
it. The claim petition was filed by the
respondents original claimants under Section
163A of the Act and claimed compensation of
Rs.4,36,170/. The original claimant was
examined at Exh.17. The documentary evidence
were also relied upon, such as, FIR Exh.22,
Panchama Exh.23, inquest Panchnama Exh.24. The
Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.2,200/ and as the deceased was
37 years old, applied multiplier of 15 and
after following the structured formula,
awarded compensation of Rs.2,68,500/ from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its
realization while partly allowing the claim
C/FA/1601/2015 JUDGMENT
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 Chhakdo 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 Chhakdo
rickshaw-the insured vehicle. 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.
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
C/FA/1601/2015 JUDGMENT
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
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
C/FA/1601/2015 JUDGMENT
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
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."
C/FA/1601/2015 JUDGMENT
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
