Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Kismatiya Devi vs Maya Devi on 28 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 154 of 2009
------
Smt. Kismatiya Devi ...Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Maya Devi
2. Simpi Kumari
3. Silki Kumari
4. Ranjan Taman Kumar
5. The Manager of the New India Insurance Company, Ranchi
6. Sri Haripad Sahu ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
12/28.09.2021: Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and Mr. Manish Kumar appearing on behalf of the respondent.
The owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. JH 01B 9013 has
challenged the award dated 31.03.2009, passed by ADJ, FTC III cum Motor
Vehicle Accident Tribunal, in M.A.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2003, whereby the right to
recovery has been given to the Insurance company, to recover the amount of
compensation from the owner of the vehicle.
Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner
submits that admittedly the vehicle was being driven by the driver having valid
driving license. He submits that as per the driving license, the driver was
authorized to drive a light motor vehicle. He submits that since the driver was
driving commercial transport vehicle, the Tribunal has held that there was a
violation of the policy as the driver who was driving the vehicle was not authorized
to drive light motor vehicle which is commercial in nature. He submits that the
distinction was made in respect of non-commercial and commercial vehicle, while
giving the right to recovery.
Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that
the issue now has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by a three judge
Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan versus
Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663.
Considering the dispute of this case it is not necessary to mention in detail
about the factum of accident. The only issue which has been raised is whether
right to recovery which has been granted to the Insurance Company to recover
amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle is as per law.
From the record, I find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the
driver of the commander jeep bearing registration no. JH 01B 9013 was having a
valid driving license to drive a light motor vehicle. It is also admitted that the vehicle
which the driver was driving and which met with the accident was a light motor
vehicle. The only dispute is whether the vehicle was used for commercial purpose
or for personal use. Only on the nature of the use of the vehicle which was
commercial in this case, the right to recovery has been given to the insurer of the
vehicle. The issue has now been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported
in (2017) 14 SCC 663. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment at
para 59 has held that Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a license with
respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of Vehicles. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in one class of vehicle there may be
different kinds of vehicle. It has further been held that if they fall in the same class
of vehicles no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court further goes on to hold that a light motor vehicle includes
a transport vehicle also, a holder of a light motor vehicle license can drive all the
vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. This aforesaid finding has settled
the issue which has been raised in this appeal. Thus considering the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I hold that the driver of the offending commander jeep
was having a valid driving license to drive the said commander jeep even if the
said jeep was being used commercially.
Thus, in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Mukund Dewangan (supra), I find that the liability is to be entrusted upon the New
India Insurance Company Ltd. solely. The right to recovery which has been given
to the Insurance company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle
stands extinguished by virtue of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra). Thus, this appeal stands allowed.
The statutory amount so deposited by the owner of the vehicle is directed to
be refunded to the owner.
Further the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in terms of order dated 2nd
March, 2012 (i.e. order no. 6) passed by this Court, is directed to be refunded to
the owner of the vehicle who is the appellant herein.
Rajnish/c.p.2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
