Madras High Court
Sivasankar vs Sankar on 19 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.683 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.M.A.No.683 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.2064 of 2019
Sivasankar,
S/o.Velayutham ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Sankar,
S/o.Raji
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Limited,
No.8/H-1, Mangalam Buildings,
Omalur Main Road, Salem-9. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.2014
made in M.C.O.P.No.314 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge No.2, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
Though the name of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is
printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 1 of 4
C.M.A.No.683 of 2019
2. By the impugned Judgment and decree, the Tribunal has ordered
pay and recovery from the appellant being the owner of the insured
vehicle involved in the accident on the ground that the appellant did not
possess 'badge endorsement'.
3. The facts are not in dispute. The insured vehicle was parked on
the left side of the road and the Auto came from behind and dashed
against the insured vehicle namely Bolero Maxi cab/Bolero Jeep.
4. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 633, wherein, in Paragraphs 60.1 &
60.2, the Court held 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”.
(Id at page 709)
“60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross
vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 2 of 4
C.M.A.No.683 of 2019
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 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 issued under Section
10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54
of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.” (Id at page 710)”
5. This decision was also followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Jagdish Kumar Sood Vs United India Insurance Company
Limited and others, 2018 (3) SCC 697.
6. In the light of the above, the award passed against the
appellant/owner of the vehicle is hereby set aside. The 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company is therefore not entitled to recover the
amount from the appellant. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is allowed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
19.04.2021
arb
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes/No
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 3 of 4
C.M.A.No.683 of 2019
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb
To:
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Judge No.2,
Salem.
C.M.A.No.683 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.2064 of 2019
19.04.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No 4 of 4
