Hardayan Singh Vs. Chiranji Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - it was taken up for the second time at the end of the second round, onwhich occasion as well no one appeared on behalf of the insurance company nor even a request was made for a pass-over.v.k. bali, j.1. by this order, i propose to dispose of three connected appeals bearing fao nos. 1346 of 1348 of 1999 as all these appeals arise from common impugned award rendered by the motor accident claims tribunal, nar-naul, dated february 6, 1999.2. brief facts of the case reveal that on march 10, 1997, smt. murti alongwith her husband chiranji lal, chander bhan, mahender son of chander bhan and other passengers, was travelling in a tempo bearing registration no.hr-35/8458 from nangal chaudhary for going to village shahbajpur. the tempo was being driven by hardhian singh, appellant herein, as per case of the claimants, in a rash and negligent and zig-zag manner, as a result of which it became out of control and turned turtle. smt. murti devi and chander bhan came underneath the body of tempo. they were taken to government hospital at kotputli in rajasthan. those, who received injuries, were taken to primary health centre, nangal, chaudhary. chander bhan injured, who was brought to , general hospital, namaul, it appears, died on the way to hospital. murti devi also subsequently succumbed to her injuries on january 16, 1998.3. the aforesaid accident gave rise to three claim petitioners. in claim petition no. 74 of 1997, titled as smt. murti devi deceased now represented by her legal representatives v. hardhian singh and ors., it was averred that she suffered injuries in her spinal cord which was got broken in the accident, as a result of which, body of smt. murti devi turned numb. she suffered injuries at the age of 30 and prior to the accident, she was doing the job of a labourer and was earning rs. 300/- per month. later on, after a gap of nine months, she died. the claim petition was amended after her death and her legal representatives claimed compensation to the tune of rs. 10 lacs. in claim petition no. 75 of 1997 titled as chiranjit lal v. hardhian and ors., claimants chiranji lal, who suffered fracture in his left hand, claimed compensation @ rs.5000/- per month. in claim petition no.9 of 1998 smt. mewa devi and ors. claimed compensation to the tune of rs. 10 lacs on account of death of chander bhan. all these petitions came to be decided by a common order rendered by learned motor accident claims tribunal dated february 6, 1999.4. the respondents contested the cause of claimants, thus, giving rise to following is-sues:-'1. whether the accident in question resulting in death of murti and mewa and injuries to chiranji lal, petitioner, had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of tempo no.hr-35/8458 by its driver hardhian singh, respondent no. 1? opp 2. to what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled to get? if so from whom? opp 3. relief.' 5. there is no dispute between the parties insofar as issue no.3 is concerned. under issue no.2, it has been held that hardhian singh was the owner-cum-driver of the offending tempo. he has been saddled with the responsibility of paying the entire compensation to the claimants. hardhian singh has, thus, challenged the order of learned tribunal pertaining to its findings recorded on issue no.2.'38. now the question to be considered by this tribunal is as to who is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants in all the three claim petitions. learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants in all the three claim petitions, as respondent no. 1 hardhian singh was not holding a driving licence with respect to drive a tempo. he has placed on the record the certificate that hardian singh, respondent no. 1 was issued the driving licence to drive a scooter, motor cycle, car and jeep w.e.f. 22.11.1996 to 21.11.2006. learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that as per notification issued by the central government under section 41(4) of the motor vehicle act, on 12.6.1989, the following vehicles come under the type of light motor vehicle:- motor vehiclestype of motor vehicleslight motor vehicle three wheelers-passengers vehicle.auto kickshawtempomotorised cycle rickshawinvalid carriagethree wheelergoods carriagedelivery vanfour wheeler passengervehiclemotor carjeepjeep stage carriagetaxitaxi cabambulancestation wagoninvalid carriage vanfour wheeler-goodscarriagedelivery vantruckfork liftpostal vanmobile vanteenmobile post officermobile clinic. thus, according to the learned counsel for the insurance company, respondent no. 1 hardian singh, the driver of tempo no.hr-35/8458 can not take up the plea that he was also authorised to drive a tempo on the basis of driving licence issued by the licensing authority, narnaul. hardhian singh, respondent no. 1 when appeared in the witness box, has, however, categorically stated that he is authorised to drive tempo on the basis of driving licence issued to him by the licensing authority, narnaul. certificate, ex.r1 no where manifests that any driving licence was ever issued to hardhian singh respondent no. 1 to drive a tempo. 39. controverting the arguments, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 however, submitted that the tempo comes within the definition of light motor vehicle and even if it is not specifically mentioned in certificate, ex.r1 issued by the licensing authority, narnaul, that respondent no. 1, hardhian singh was not entitled to drive the tempo, it shall be presumed that hardhian singh, respondent no. 1 was also authorised to drive the tempo because the tempo comes within the definition of light motor vehicle. hence, the insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay compensation to the claimants in all the three claim petitions. 40. having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, i am of the view that respondent no. 1 hardhian singh, the driver of the tempo no. hr-35/8458 was not holding a valid driving licence to drive a tempo on the date of the accident as he was only issued the driving licence by the licensing authority, narnaul to drive a scooter, motor cycle, car and jeep only. the certificate, ex.rl issued by the licensing authority, narnaul no where manifests that he was ever authorised to drive a tempo. there are more than 26 types of motor vehicles which come within the definition of light motor vehicle as detailed in the above table and holder of a driving licence of light motor vehicle can drive these vehicles as detailed above. but in the instant case the licensing authority had issued a driving licence to hardhian singh, respondent no. 1 to drive a motor cycle, car and jeep only. thus, 1 do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for respondent no. 1 hardhian singh that respondent no. 1 hardhian singh was authorised to drive a tempo vide driving licence issued by the licensing authority, narnaul, the certificate of which is ex.rl. hence the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation amount to the claimants in all the three claim petitions, because respondent no. 1 hardhian singh was not holding the driving licence to drive a tempo and as such he had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.' 6. learned counsel representing the appellants hardhian singh contends that the driving licence can be granted for the types of vehicles mentioned in section 10(2) of the motor vehicle act, 1988, the same can either be with regard to motor cycle without gear, motor cycle with gear, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle, transport vehicle, road roller or motor vehicle of a specified description. in the present case, it is not disputed that the appellant had a valid licence, even though therein it had been mentioned that the same is granted for scooter/motor cycle/car and jeep. jeep, it is contended, is a light motor vehicle and so would be a tempo. that being so, it was wholly irrelevant, if in the licence granted to the appellant, all that was mentioned was scooter/motor cycle/car/jeep. it shall be deemed to be a licence for all light motor vehicles. light motor vehicle has been defined in section 2(21) of the said act of 1988 to mean a transport vehicle or minibus, 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 7500 kilograms. by virtue of act no.54 of 1994 w.e.f. november 14, 1994 figure '6000' in section 2(21) have been substituted with the figures '7500'. weight of tempo is not more than 7500 kgs. further contends the learned counsel.7. the case was called according to its turn and as none appeared on behalf of the respondent-insurance company, it was passed-over, even though no request for even that was made. it was taken up for the second time at the end of the second round, onwhich occasion as well no one appeared on behalf of the insurance company nor even a request was made for a pass-over. on third occasion, when case has been called, position is not different. the court is, thus, left with no choice but for to proceed with this case in the absence of counsel representing insurance company.8. the contentions of learned counsel, as noted above, have substance. once, a licence can be granted by virtue of provisions contained in section 10 only with regard to kind of vehicles or type of vehicle, enumerated therein, the mere fact that in the licence of appellant scooter/motor cycle/car/jeep were mentioned, would be of no consequence. it shall be considered to be driving licence for a light motor vehicle and tempo, as per definition of light motor vehicle, as contained in section 2(21) of the act of 1988, would be a light motor vehicle. the definition of light motor vehicle apart, it does not sound to reason even otherwise that a person, who is issued a valid licence to drive a car/jeep, could not drive a tempo. there is no special training that may be required to drive a tempo which may be different in material details for driving a jeep/car. the mechanism of all these vehicles is practically same. the distinction in driving various kinds of vehicles and grant of licence thereof is primarily when such vehicles are different in mechanism and require different kind of training. looked, thus, from any angle, award passed by learned tribunal foisting entire responsibility upon the appellant to satisfy the claim of the claimants cannot possibly sustain. that being so, findings recorded by the tribunal under issue no. 2 to that effect are set aside. it is ordered mat respondent-insurance company as also driver and owner of the offending tempo would be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as assessed by the tribunal to the claimants in all the claim petitions, mentioned above.parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.