M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. This appeal by the appellant- Insurance Company Ltd. is directed against the judgment and award dated 29th April, 2003 passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 148 of 1991 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00000/- to the claimants by way of compensation for the death of one Jai Shankar Sinha in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:
The deceased, Jai Shankar Sinha was aged about 17 years at the time of death. On 14.3.1991 the deceased was traveling in a trekker bearing registration No. BEM 9219. When the said trekker reached near Thermal Power Road No. 3, New Market, PTPS in the district of Hazaribagh, a truck bearing registration No. BEM 9973 being driven rashly and negligently, all of a sudden, came in high speed and dashed the said trekker as a result of which the deceased received serious injury and ultimately died on the way t o the hospital. In respect of the said accident a case being Patratu P.S. case No. 78/91 against the driver of the truck was instituted in which the police, after conclusion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the driver of the truck for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The appellant, being the insurer of the truck, contested the claim by filing written statement. Although the insurance of the vehicle has not been denied by the appellant but the defence taken by the appellant was that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving license.
4. The Tribunal formulated various issues including an issue whether the driver of the offending truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. While deciding the issues the Tribunal found that, whether the driver of the offending truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. While deciding the issues the Tribunal found that the driver of the truck was authorized to drive light motor vehicle. The Tribunal, therefore, held that holding a driving license to drive light motor vehicle may be a breach of condition of the policy but the appellant- Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from liability of payment of compensation. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and award, compensation has been awarded against the appellant- Insurance Company.
5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- Insurance company assailed the impugned judgment and award as being contrary to law and the conditions of the Insurance Policy. Learned Counsel submitted that driving a truck by a person holding license to drive light motor vehicle, is a breach of condition of contract of insurance and, therefore, the appellant - Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Learned Counsel, in this connection, relief upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kusum Rai and Ors. (2006 AIR SCW 1649). In course of argument Mr. Lal produced before us a photo copy of the schedule of the insurance policy by which the truck was insured.
6. Mr. Rajiv Anand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants- respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the offending truck is a light motor vehicle inasmuch as it was a Mini TDV gods carrying vehicle having laden weight of 5,990 KGs. Learned Counsel drew our attention to the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act and submitted that the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability for payment of compensation. In this connection learned Counsel produced before us a Xerox copy of the road permit issued by the Registering Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and also a copy of driving licence. The genuineness of photo copies of the insurance policy, road permit and driving licence produced by the learned Counsels have no t been disputed. Hence, while deciding the issues, we have taken into consideration these documents with the consent of the parties.
7. In the photo copy of the road permit detailed description of the vehicle has been given, Maker's name has been shown as TDV. Type of body has been shown as ' truck' and registered laden weight has been shown as 5990 KGs. In the photo copy of the insurance policy also the type of vehicle has been shown as TDV truck and carrying capacity has been shown as 5990 KGs. It is, therefore, clear that the truck in question is a TDV Mini goods carrying vehicle having laden weight of 5990 KGs. However, the driving licence was for driving light motor vehicle and there is no endorsement to drive transport or commercial vehicle.
8. Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) defines the words 'goods carriage' which reads as under
(14) 'goods carriage' means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods.
9. Section 2(16) of the Act defines the words ' heavy goods vehicle'. Section 2(16) of the Act reads as under:
(16) 'heavy goods vehicle' means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms.
10. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the words' light motor vehicle'.
Section 2(21) of the Act reads as under:
(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.
11. Section 2(47) of the Act defines the words 'Transport Vehicle' which reads as under:
47. 'Transport Vehicle' means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.
12. From reading of the aforesaid definition it is manifestly clear that light motor vehicle includes a transport vehicle i.e. a public service vehicle or goods carriage vehicle, an educational institution bus or private service vehicle. In the instant case, the vehicle in question is admittedly a goods carriage vehicle which is a commercial vehicle. From perusal of the driving licence it is clear that there was no endorsement or authorization to drive a commercial vehicle. In that view of the matter the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in Kusum Rai's Case (Supra) is fully applicable in this case.
13. Mr. Rajiv Anand learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle drew our attention to Section 10 of the Act and submitted that in Sub-section (2) of Section 10 'Transport Vehicle' has been added by virtue of amendment made in the Act in 1994. In that view of the matter, there was no question of making entry in the driving licence to drive transport vehicle.
14. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicle Act prescribes the form and contents of licence to drive. Section 10 of the Act reads as under:
10. Form and contents of licences to drive - (1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(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 for specified description.
15. From reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that it motor vehicle is of a specified description, it shall expressly mention in the driving licence entitling the driver to drive such motor vehicle. Section 2(23) defines the word 'medium goods vehicle' which means a goods carriage other that a light motor vehicle or heavy motor vehicle. Section 2(23) reads us under:
2(23) 'medium goods vehicle' means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle.
16. Admittedly the vehicle was a goods carriage vehicle and the driver was not entitled to drive goods carriage vehicle notwithstanding the fact that he was authorized the drive light motor vehicle. In our view therefore, driving a goods carriage vehicle by a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, is violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and also the conditions of the Insurance Policy.
17. In the light of the facts and the law discussed hereinabove, we are in full agreement with the submission of the Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel for the appellant that while directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award, right of recovery should have been given to the appellant to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.
18. We, therefore, allow this appeal and hold that the appellant shall pay the awarded amount to the claimants and direct that the appellant may recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle in the manner provided in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanjappan and Ors. (2005) SCC (Cr.)-148.
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
19. I agree.