Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Company ... vs Maku Soren on 15 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 505 of 2016
-----
National Insurance Company Limited, Dumka ..... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Maku Soren
2. Kaleshwar Marandi
3. Kanhu Marandi
4. Chhoto Babuji Marandi
5. Rajesh Kumar Bhagat. .... Respondent(s)
With
M.A. No. 506 of 2016
-----
National Insurance Company Limited, Dumka ..... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Elachi Marandi
2. Subhash Hansda
3. Jansuri Kisku
4. Rajesh Kumar Bhagat .... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
(Through: Video Conferencing)
-----
For the appellants: Mr. D.C. Ghosh, Advocate
For the respondents: M/s Arvind Kr. Lall, Yasir Arafat and Anil Kr. Singh, Advs.
----
14/15.02.2022: Both these two appeal have been preferred by the appellant-Insurance
Company against the Judgments and award dated 23.6.2016 and 24.6.2016 passed
by the Principal District Judge-Cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur in
MACT Case Nos. 39 of 2014 and 41 of 2014, respectively.
2. It is submitted that a Pickup Van bearing registration No. JH 15E 6668
was driven rashly and negligently which was coming from Pakuria. It dashed three
person, who were standing on the road and was waiting for a transport vehicle.
Munsi Marandi and Ismile Hansda died, which resulted in filing of the claim
applications. The Tribunal after considering all the issues allowed the claim
applications and awarded compensation to the claimants in both the cases, to be
paid by the Insurance Company.
3. The Insurance Company has challenged the award on limited ground
i.e. the offending vehicle was being driven by a person who was not authorized to
drive the said Pickup Van, as the endorsement in the driving licence to the effect
that he is authorized to drive transport vehicle is missing.
4. The counsel for the appellant submits that as per Ext.7 which is driving
licence, the driver was authorized to drive light motor vehicle (LMV) which should be
of "non-transport" in nature. He further submits that the vehicle which was being
driven by the driver was admittedly a Light Motor Vehicle but was a transport
vehicle, thus the insurance policy has been violated as the driver was driving the
vehicle without valid endorsement on the driving licence. He submits that in that
case, it is the owner of the vehicle, who has to pay the amount of compensation.
5. Thus, from the arguments of the counsel for the appellant-insurance
company, it is evident that he wants to raise a ground that in absence of an
authorization allowing the driver to drive the transport vehicle, he is not authorized to
drive the vehicle which was being driven by him even though the vehicle was a light
motor vehicle. The question as to whether in absence of any authorization to drive
the transport vehicle, a driver can drive light goods/transport vehicle as per law 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 (2017) 14 SCC
663. The said judgment has also been followed and reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Jagdish Kumar Sood Vs. United India
Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 697. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) has decided the
issue in paras 60.1 and 60.2, which read as under:-
"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 Sections 2(15) and 2(48).
Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of
the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 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 roadroller,
"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 care or tractor or roadroller, the
'unladen weight' or 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 of 1994 and
28.3.2001 in the form."
6. Considering the aforesaid proposition of law, which has been set at rest
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I hold that the driver who was driving the
offending vehicle bearing registration No. JH 15E 6668 was duly authorized to drive
the Pickup Van. I find no illegality in the judgment passed by the Tribunal in both the
cases, whereby the Insurance Company has been saddled with the liability to pay
the amount of compensation.
7. Thus, both the appeals are dismissed.
8. The statutory amount, which has been deposited before this Court by
the Insurance Company at the time of filing these appeals should be refunded to the
appellant-Insurance Company.
Anu/-C.P.2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
