Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Ins. Co.Ltd vs Gurdial Kaur & Ors on 20 April, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
2024:PHHC:063012
FAO-2465-2007 (O&M)
-1-
552-A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO-2465-2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.04.2024
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant
VERSUS
Gurdial Kaur and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for appellant - Insurance Co.
Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the claimants-respondents.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The insurance company has filed the present appeal for recovery
rights.
2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that
on 11.06.2001, at about 5.30 pm Bachna Ram was walking in front of the gate of
CMC Hospital, Sector 17, Chandigarh when a three wheeler bearing registration
No.HR-37-8093 came at a fast speed and struck against him and against the door
of the above said Hospital. Due to the impact, Bachna Ram fell down on the road
and received serious injuries. He was taken to PGI, Chandigarh immediately
where he died on 13.06.2001. The accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving of the three-wheeler by Ram Kumar (respondent No.1). It was the
contention of the claimants that the deceased was about 51 years of age at the time
of accident and was employed as Meter Reader in Municipal Corporation, Public
2024:PHHC:063012
FAO-2465-2007 (O&M)
Health Department, Sector 9 Chandigarh and his monthly income was Rs.10,000/-
per month. Claimant No.1 is the widow and claimant Nos. 2 to 7 are the children of
the deceased.
3. Upon notice, respondents appeared and denied the factum of claim.
4. From the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following
issues:-
1. Whether deceased Bachan Ram died in Motor Vehicle accident
caused by respondent No.1 by driving three wheeler No.HR-37-8093
in a rash and negligent manner? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to
compensation being the legal representatives of late Bachan Ram?
OPP
3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving
licence at the time of accident? OPR-3
4. Relief.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that since the insured
vehicle in question was three-wheeler, the same is falling under the category of
commercial vehicle, and upon the driving licence of the driver of insured vehicle,
there was no transport endorsement, which is required under the Act, therefore,
recovery rights are to be recovered from the driver and owner of the insured
vehicle in question.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents argues on the lines of
the award.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and thoroughly gone
through the record.
2024:PHHC:063012
FAO-2465-2007 (O&M)
8. The law qua transport endorsement is no more res integra, in view of
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd 2017(4) R.C.R (Civil) 111. Relevant para of
the same is reproduced hereunder:-
"46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with
respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of
vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of
vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate
endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor
vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor
vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including
transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-
amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other
interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor
vehicle" in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule
8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are
in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended
to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor
vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such
licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class
also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transport
Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger
motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle
which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our
conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have
2024:PHHC:063012
FAO-2465-2007 (O&M)
discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us
thus:
(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.
(ii) 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 road roller, '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 road-roller, 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 54/1994 and
28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994
w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section
10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e),
medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods
vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle"
2024:PHHC:063012
FAO-2465-2007 (O&M)
in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted
in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes
only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section
10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport
vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the
year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport
vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it
was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain
separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is
holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport
vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."
9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mukund Dewangan's case (supra), the present appeal is dismissed.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
April 20, 2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
