1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 23.10.08 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, District Legal Services Authority, along with allowing the application preferred by the first respondent herein under Section 20 read with Section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short "the Act") and consequently directing the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 64,995/- along with interest @ 10% for the period commencing from 13.4.05. It is further ordered that if the amount is not paid within a period of two months, the amount payable shall carry interest @ 12%.
2. The relevant facts are that the first respondent's vehicle RJ-06-E-2062, an ambulance car, was insured with the Petitioner Insurance Company for the period 21.2.04 to 20.2.05. On 12.10.04, on account of vehicular accident, the said vehicle was badly damaged. After spot survey and final survey, the Authorised Surveyer and the Loss Assessor assessed the net loss at L 64,995.34, subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Petitioner Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by Mr.along with Lal Jat, who was not authorised to drive the transport vehicle. According to the Petitioner Insurance Company, the first respondent wilfully violated the policy condition by handing over the vehicle to a person who was not possessing a valid and effective driving license to drive the transport vehicle.
3. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 20 read with Section 22 of the Act before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Legal Services Authority, Bhilwara, seeking directions to the Petitioner Insurance Company, to pay the loss caused to the vehicle, quantified at L 1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. That apart, the petitioner claimed compensation for mental harassment quantified at L 25,000/-.
4. The claim petition was contested by the Petitioner Insurance Company by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that at the time of the accident, the person driving the vehicle was holding the license authorising him to drive only the Motor Cycle with gear and Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) other than transport vehicle and therefore, the first respondent herein having violated the conditions of the policy, was not entitled to claim the damages.
5. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Permanent Lok Adalat observed that the weight of the vehicle Maruti Van involved in the accident was 7.4 quintal and thus, being of the weight less than 7.5 quintal, the said vehicle falls within the definition of LMV and does not fall within the category of Commercial Vehicle or Goods Transport Vehicle and therefore, the Petitioner Insurance Company was not justified in repudiating the claim. Accordingly, the application preferred by the first respondent has been allowed and the Petitioner Insurance Company has been directed to pay the amount to the first respondent as indicated above. Hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Insurance Company reiterating the stand taken before the Permanent Lok Adalat submitted that the vehicle involved in the accident was an ambulance car, which falls within the definition of 'transport vehicle' and the driver of the vehicle who was authorised to drive LMV other than transport vehicle, was obviously not authorised to drive the transport vehicle, even if its gross weight was less than 7500 kg. and therefore, the first respondent having violated the condition of the policy was not entitled to claim compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court dated 28.11.13 rendered in the matter of Ramkumar v. Mangal Chand" (S.B.C.Misc. Appeal No.842/09 and one connected appeal). Learned counsel submitted that since the driver was possessing the license only to drive LMV and not transport vehicle, the Petitioner Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay for claim. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal", MACD 2008 (SC)21.
7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the vehicle involved in the accident was Maruti Van having unladen weight less than 7500 kg., which falls within the definition of LMV and therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat has committed no error in holding that the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was authorised to drive the vehicle in question. Learned counsel submitted that merely because the vehicle was used as an ambulance, it cannot be treated to be a transport vehicle.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
9. Indisputably, the vehicle in question, a Maruti Van, having unladen weight less than 7500 kg. was being used as an ambulance. It is also not in dispute that the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, was possessing the driving license authorising him to drive 'the motor cycle with gear and LMV other than transport vehicle' and therefore, obviously, the driver of the vehicle was not authorised to drive the 'transport vehicle' even if the same falls within the definition of 'LMV'.
10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the definition of the ' light motor vehicle' and 'transport vehicle' as set out under Section 2 (21) and 2(47) respectively, may be beneficially quoted:
"2(21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500] kilograms; (47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle".
11. A bare perusal of the definition of 'light motor vehicles' reveals that even a transport vehicle having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg. falls within the definition of 'light motor vehicle'. But then, merely because the driver of the vehicle was authorised to drive the LMV on the strength of license issued in his favour, he does not become entitled to drive the transport vehicle, which stands specifically excluded, while issuing the license in his favour, authorising him to driver LMV. It is not disputed before this court that the vehicle in question was used as an ambulance which is undoubtedly a 'public service vehicle', falling within the definition of 'transport vehicle' and therefore, on the strength of the driving license issued to the driver of the vehicle authorising him to drive the LMV, he was not authorised to drive the transport vehicle.
12. In Ram Kumar's case (supra), a coordinate Bench of this court after due consideration of the various provisions of the Act and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that the person holding driving license to drive light motor vehicle is not entitled to drive transport vehicle even if its gross vehicle weight is less than 7500 kg.
13. Thus, as a matter of fact, the controversy involved in the matter stands squarely covered by a decision of this court in Ram Kumar's case (supra).
14. In New India Assurance Company's case (supra), where the vehicle involved in the accident was found to be driven by the person not possessing the license to drive the transport vehicle, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation.
15. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Legal Services Authority, Bhilwara is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 23.10.08 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat District Legal Services Authority, Bhilwara in Case No.1/07, is set aside. No order as to costs.
Petition allowed.