Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Choudhary vs Smt. Keshia Devi on 13 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 363 of 2006
Manoj Kumar Choudhary ..... Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Keshia Devi
2. Krishna Mohan
3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Deoghar .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Shashank Shekhar Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate
------
CAV ON 16.12.2021 PRONOUNCED ON 13.01.2022
1. The owner of the vehicle O.P. No.1 is the appellant and the
appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award passed in M.V.
Claim Case No.51/2001 whereby and whereunder the award of
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- has been made in favour of the claimants
directing the Insurance Company (respondent no.3) to pay the same with a
liberty to recover the amount of compensation along with interest from the
owner.
2. The award has been assailed on the ground that the vehicle in
question was under the insurance cover of O.P. No.3 and the driver had a
valid driving licence (Ext.-B) of heavy motor vehicle and therefore there was
no violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. There is no
difference of unladen weight of heavy passenger motor vehicle and heavy
Goods carrying vehicles because as per the definition u/s 2(16) and 2(17) of
the M.V. Act, 1988, the unladen weight of both the vehicles are exactly the
same. Despite this the learned Tribunal has given liberty to the Insurance
Company to pay and recover the amount on the ground of breach of term of
insurance policy.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company
has defended the impugned order.
4. The short question for consideration is whether the driver of the
vehicle who had a valid driving licence for driving a heavy passenger vehicle
can be regarded to have a valid driving licence for driving a truck which is a
goods carrying vehicle?
The question has been answered in Mukund Dewangan v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 wherein it has been held :
"55. Sections 10(2)(a) to (j) lay down the classes of vehicles to be driven, not
a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If a vehicle falls into any of
the categories, a licence-holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle
can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to
be obtained nor provided, if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes
of Section 10(2). This Court has rightly observed in Nagashetty
[Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 56 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 1408] that in case submission to the contrary is accepted, then
every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor
vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries
goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and
the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would
lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or
to a motor vehicle it by itself does not mean that driver ceased to have valid
driving licence. In our considered opinion, even if such a vehicle is treated as
transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle class, legal position would not
change and driver would still have a valid driving licence to drive transport
vehicle of light motor vehicle class, whether it is a transport vehicle or a
private car/tractor attached with trolley or used for carrying goods in the
form of transport vehicle. The ultimate conclusion in Nagashetty
[Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 56 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 1408] is correct, however, for the reasons as explained by us."
4. Here in the present case the driver was having a valid driving
licence for driving Heavy Passenger Vehicle which comes under the
category of transport vehicle as under Section 10 (2) (e) of the MV Act, and
there was no further requirement of having a separate endorsement for
driving a truck which was goods carrying vehicle. The learned Tribunal was
clearly in error to hold that the driver was not having a valid driving licence.
The finding of the Learned Tribunal regarding the breach of the condition of
the insurance policy is set aside. Since the vehicle was under insurance cover
therefore the Insurance Company OP No.3 shall solely be liable to pay the
compensation amount to the claimants.
Under the circumstance, the order of the learned Tribunal to that
extent is set aside.
The appeal is allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 13th January, 2022
AFR/Tarun
