Jharkhand High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Kuwar Munda on 8 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 463 of 2015
----
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ranchi. .... Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. Kuwar Munda
2. Chandu Kumari
3. Pado Kumari
4. Subrat Kumar. .... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
(Through: Video Conferencing)
-----
For the appellant(s) : Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate.
For respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, Advocate.
----
07/08.02.2022: Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-New India
Assurance Company Limited challenging the award dated 20.6.2015 passed by
the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in
Compensation Case No. 110/2005.
3. By the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to
the tune of Rs.3,51,000/- to the claimants on account of death of house wife,
aged about 45 years.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed
error in directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. He
further submits that the Tribunal after weighing the evidences and after going
through the documents has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
authorized to drive the passenger service vehicle, on the date of accident. He
also submits that as the driver was not authorized to drive the aforesaid vehicle,
there is violation of the conditions of the insurance policy and that being so, the
amount of compensation should have been directed to be paid by the owner of
the vehicle, absolving the insurance company of the liability. This is the only
ground, which has been taken and argued by the insurance company in this
appeal.
5. Since the ground of appeal is limited, I am not entering into the
factum of accident, quantum of compensation as well as other aspects. This
order will be limited only in respect of the point raised by the Insurance
Company.
6. Vehicle No. JH-01C-4549 met with an accident as the vehicle was
being driven in rash and negligent manner. The deceased was a passenger of
the said vehicle. The vehicle was a commander jeep and was duly insured with
the appellant. From the record, I find that the vehicle was being driven by driver
who was having a valid licence. The only point, which has been raised, is that
though the driver was having valid licence, but there was no endorsement to the
effect that he could drive the passenger service vehicle.
7. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the licence was issued
to the driver to drive light motor vehicle. As per the Insurance Company, the
Jeep, which is the offending vehicle, is a light motor vehicle. The tribunal has
held that there was no endorsement in the licence allowing the driver to drive a
passenger service vehicle and in absence of the said endorsement, the Tribunal
has held that there is violation of the policy, as the driver was not authorized to
drive the passenger service vehicle. Thus, the issue, which the Insurance
Company is trying to wreck up is even if a person is holding a driving licence
permitting him to drive a light motor vehicle, but for driving a passenger vehicle,
he needs special permission/endorsement and in absence of such endorsement,
it will be treated that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy.
8. The aforesaid issue has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the said judgment has held that light motor vehicle includes a light motor
vehicle which can be used as passenger service vehicle. It is necessary to quote
para 46(i) which is relevant para of the aforesaid judgment.
"46(i): '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."
Thus, from the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, it is clear that a light motor vehicle will include a transport vehicle of the
same class.
9. Admittedly, in this case, the driver was holding a licence to drive the
light motor vehicle, thus, in terms of the aforesaid judgment, he was authorized
to drive the passenger service vehicle, which is a transport vehicle.
10. As held earlier, admittedly the vehicle which the driver was driving is
a light motor vehicle. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, the findings in respect of Issue Nos. 6 and 7 of the impugned award,
whereby it has been held that there was violation of the policy, since the licensing
authority did not endorse in the driving licence to drive the passenger service
vehicle is erroneous. Thus it cannot be said that there was violation of policy.
11. Since there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy, the prayer of the insurance company to the effect that direction
should be given to the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation amount
cannot be acceded to. Thus, the ground, which has been raised by the appellant-
Insurance Company has got no leg to stand in view of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. This appeal is thus, dismissed.
12 The statutory amount, deposited by the Insurance Company, is
directed to be refunded to them.
Anu/-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
