Rajasthan High Court
Smt Pana And Ors vs Meghraj And Ors on 20 December, 2023
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
[2023:RJ-JP:40716]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 9/2012
1. Smt. Pana W/o Chaturbhuj, R/o Naya Gaon, P.s. Uniara,
District Tonk.
2. Sheoji S/o Late Shri Chaturbhuj, R/o Naya Gaon, P.s.
Uniara, District Tonk.
3. Ram Prakash S/o Late Shri Chaturbhuj, R/o Naya Gaon,
P.s. Uniara, District Tonk.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Meghraj S/o Shri Devpal, By Caste Gurjar, Neem Ki
Chauki, Sawai Madhopur
2. M/s Khatri Panna Lal Prem Raj, Bidi Factory, Sawai
Madhopur, C/o Partners Radhe Shyam, S/o Bal Mukund,
By Caste Khatri, R/o Sawai Madhopur, Tehsil And District
Sawai Madhopur
3. The New India Assurance Co., Its Regional Office Nehru
Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Regional Manager
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. P. Garg
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amar Nath Pareek
Mr. Kapil Sharma on behalf of
Mr. Sandeep Mathur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
Date of Reserved :: 29/09/2023
Date of Pronouncement :: 20/12/2023
1. This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against
the judgment dated 27.09.2011 passed by this Court in SB Civil
Cross Objection No.08617/2009 in SB Civil Misc. Appeal
(Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:10 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:40716] (2 of 8) [CRW-9/2012]
No.852/1997 (Smt. Pana & Ors. Vs. Meghraj & Ors) whereby the
cross-objection and appeal have been dismissed.
2. Brief relevant facts for the present purposes are that a claim
petition No.106/1995 was filed before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as the learned 'Tribunal')
claiming compensation due to death of one Chaturbhuj. Learned
Tribunal vide its judgment dated 26.05.1997 disposed of the claim
petition and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- in
favour of the claimants. Learned Tribunal in the said judgment has
held that driver, who was driving the car, was not holding a valid
license at the time of accident, as he was driving a Light Motor
Vehicle (LMV), while possessing a driving license of Heavy Motor
Vehicle (HMV) and, therefore, the learned Tribunal exonerated the
Insurance Company and fastened the liability upon the driver and
owner of the offending vehicle.
3. The judgment of the learned Tribunal was challenged by way
of an appeal before this Court by the claimants for enhancement
of compensation against which a cross-objection was also filed by
the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. M/s Khatri Panna Lal.
4. It was stated in the cross-objection that the driver of the
offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license and,
therefore, he was competent to drive the light motor vehicle and
thus, the judgment was erroneous on this count alone.
5. This Court vide its judgment dated 27.09.2011 dismissed the
appeal filed by the claimants as well as the cross-objection filed by
the owner of the offending vehicle.
(Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:10 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:40716] (3 of 8) [CRW-9/2012]
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.09.2011, the
present review petition has been filed by the owner of the
offending vehicle.
7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that
judgment dated 27.09.2011 passed by this Court is against the
law applicable, therefore, there is a mistake apparent on the face
of it and thus, the judgment deserves to be recalled and reviewed.
He further submitted that the provisions contained under Section
7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that a person must
hold a license to drive LMV for at least one year in order to get a
license for transport vehicle, which includes both medium and
heavy vehicles. He argued that as soon as the person gets the
driving license of the category of heavy motor vehicle, his driving
license of Light Motor Vehicle merges with the transport vehicle. In
the present case also the driver of the offending vehicle was
holding driving license of Heavy Motor Vehicle and driving a Light
Motor Vehicle at the time of accident, therefore, the provisions
contained under Section 7 of the MV Act are applicable in the
present case.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the
review petition is maintainable, as this Court has failed to properly
consider the judgment cited by the petitioner-respondent while
passing the judgment dated 27.09.2011. He prayed that the
review petition be allowed.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3 - Insurance Company submitted that there is no patent
infirmity in the judgment dated 27.09.2011 of this Court,
therefore, the review petition is not maintainable. He further
[2023:RJ-JP:40716] (4 of 8) [CRW-9/2012]
submitted that scope of review petition is very limited and,
therefore, the review petition is liable to be rejected. He also
argued that there is no ground to interfere with the judgment
dated 27.09.2011.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material made available on record.
11. It is an admitted position that the driver of offending vehicle
on the date of accident was holding a driving license to drive
Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV), whereas at the time of accident the
driver was driving a car, which is a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV).
12. Learned Tribunal in its judgment dated 26.05.1997 has held
that as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving
license to drive Light Motor Vehicle and, therefore, there was a
breach of insurance policy and held that driver/owner of the
offending vehicle was liable to pay the compensation.
13. For ready reference the provisions of Section 7 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 are reproduced hereinbelow :
"7. Restrictions on the granting of learner's licenses
for certain vehicles - (1) No person shall be granted
a learner's license to drive a transport vehicle unless
he has held a driving license to drive a light motor
vehicle for at least one year
[Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section
shall apply to an e-cart or e-rickshaw]
(2) No person under the age of eighteen years shall
be granted a learner's license to drive a motor cycle
without gear except with the consent in writing of
the person having the care of the person desiring
the learner's license."
[2023:RJ-JP:40716] (5 of 8) [CRW-9/2012]
14. After perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is abundantly
clear that a person is not entitled to have driving licenses to drive
a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licenses to drive a
light motor vehicle for at least one year. In other words, holder of
driving license to drive a transport vehicle necessarily possess the
skill to drive a light motor vehicle.
15. The same issue came before the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Parkashi and Ors., reported in 2017 ACJ 1922, in which it
was held as under :
"Similar issue was considered by the Jammu and Kashmir
High Court in N
Kashmir), 2011 (2) J.K.J. 357. After referring to the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as also the case law on
the subject, it was concluded that holder of a licence to drive
HTV (PE), cannot be said to be having no licence for driving
Light Motor Vehicle as they are of the same type. It was
observed as under:
"32. Section 10(2) of the MV Act provides that driving
licence shall be express as entitling the holder to drive a
motor vehicle of various classes, such as:
(a) motor cycle without gear;
(b) motor cycle with gear;
(c) invalid carriage;
(d) light motor vehicle;
(e) transport vehicle;
(f) road-roller;
(g) motor vehicle of a specified description.
[2023:RJ-JP:40716] (6 of 8) [CRW-9/2012]
33. The aforesaid classification does not give the description
of all the vehicles but gives the description of type of
vehicles. In the said backdrop the vehicle (Scorpio), in the
context of definitions as given to transport vehicle, is held to
be the vehicle of same type.
34. In paragraph 47 of the three Judge judgment as referred
hereinabove, it has been held that "if a person has been
given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified
therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving
another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of
different type".
35. Applying the same ratio to the facts of the instant case,
the driver, holder of licence to drive HTV(PE), while driving a
Scorpio (Light Motor Vehicle) cannot be said to be having no
licence for driving such type of vehicle which in effect is not
different and more so when in terms of Section 7 of the Act
precondition for obtaining licence for driving transport
vehicles, means heavy vehicle, is to possess licence for
driving light motor vehicle at least for one year. ..... ......
38. The category of the vehicle is of essence and then to
hold license for driving a particular category of vehicles
having different types can be driven by the driver who
possesses driving license for driving such type of vehicles.
39. For the stated reasons, the driver, holder of licence to
drive HTV(PE) while driving vehicle (Scorpio) cannot be said
to be not holding the licence to drive such type of vehicle, so
is held to be having valid and effective license, resultantly
[2023:RJ-JP:40716] (7 of 8) [CRW-9/2012]
there being no violation of specified condition, the insurer is
held liable to pay the compensation."
This issue was also considered by this Court in Harsewak
Singh son of Niranjan Singh v. Lajo Devi wife of
Gurmail Singh, (Punjab And Haryana) 2013 (2) PLR
809, wherein, agreeing with the decisions of different High
Courts, it was held that possession of licence to drive HTV
must be seen as sufficient qualification for a person to drive
a LMV also, as the mechanism to drive in both the categories
of vehicles was the same."
16. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has also considered the
same issue in Harsewak Singh Vs. Lajo Devi & Ors reported in
2014 ACJ 719 wherein agreeing with the decision of different
High Courts with regard to possession of license, it was held that
possessing a licence to drive HMV must be seen as sufficient
qualification for a person to drive a LMV, as the mechanism to
drive the both are the same.
17. As per the discussions aforesaid, it is clear that a person
cannot have a driving license to drive a heavy motor vehicle
unless he earlier had a license to drive light motor vehicle for at
least one year.
18. As per the judgment of Punjab and Haryana in the case of
Parkashi (supra), it is clear that if a person is holding a license
to drive heavy motor vehicle while driving a light motor vehicle, it
cannot be said that he has no license at all and, therefore, there
cannot be a breach of policy condition in such a situation. The
same issue was raised on behalf of learned counsel for the review
petitioner before this Court earlier also in the cross-objection and
[2023:RJ-JP:40716] (8 of 8) [CRW-9/2012]
the arguments in support of the review petition mentioned in the
judgment itself but no observation, on the contentions raised by
the review petitioner, was made by this Court vide judgment dated
27.09.2011 and thus, this Court finds that the judgment of this
Court is liable to be recalled and reviewed.
19. In the light of aforesaid discussions, the review petition is
allowed and the judgment passed by this Court vide order dated
27.09.2011 is recalled. It is held that, as the driver of the
offending vehicle was holding a license to drive Heavy Motor
Vehicle at the time of accident while driving a Light Motor Vehicle,
it cannot be said that he did not have a driving license to drive the
vehicle at all, therefore, there was no breach of policy and the
Insurance Company of offending vehicle is liable to indemnify the
owner of the offending vehicle.
20. The review petition is disposed of accordingly.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J
A. ARORA /-(Reserved)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
