Pattanakkad Panchayat Vs. Ponnappan - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/729167
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnSep-02-2003
Case NumberM.F.A. No. 772 of 1995
Judge R. Rajendra Babu, J.
Reported inI(2004)ACC286; 2004ACJ1431; AIR2004Ker46; 2003(3)KLT997
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 2(28) and 10(2)
AppellantPattanakkad Panchayat
RespondentPonnappan
Appellant Advocate A.K. Alex and; P. Vijayaraghavan, Advs.
Respondent Advocate Varghese P. Thomas,; Lal George, Advs. and; M.J. Rajasre
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 100-a [as substituted by c.p.c. amendment act, 2002]: [v.k. bali, cj, kurian joseph & k. balakrishnan nair, jj] applicability held, section is not retrospective. all appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. but subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro court appeals against judgment of single judge is not maintainable. provisions of section 100-a, c.p.c., will prevail over the provisions contained in the kerala high court act, 1959. r. rajendra babu, j. 1. the important question that has come up for consideration is whether a driving licence is necessary for operating a power tiller. tilakan, the 2nd appellant, tilakan was operating the power tiller bearing reg. no. kl 4382 on 3.5.1991. while so, it hit against ponnan the first respondent, herein causing some injuries. the power tiller belonged to the first appellant co-operative society. the injured 1st respondent filed op (mv) 918/91 before the mact alleppey. the tribunal awarded a total compensation of rs. 32,000/- with interest at 12% from 27.6.1991 till realisation. the tribunal exonerated national insurance company, the 3rd respondent from the liability for compensation holding that the operator of the power tiller did not have a valid driving licence, though there was a valid insurance coverage for the vehicle. the above award is under challenge at the instance of the owner and operator of the power tiller. 2. the main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was that a driving licence was not required by law, for operating a power tiller, though it was a motor vehicle as defined under section 2(28) of the motor vehicles act. it was argued that a driving licence could be insisted only in respect of the class of vehicles mentioned in section 10(2) and as power tillers were not included in the above class of vehicles, no licence was necessary to operate the power tiller. it was further argued that there was no driving seat provided to the power tiller and only when there was a driving seat provided for in the case of the power tiller the vehicle was operated by holding its handle and the operator walking though the ground. the learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the tiller being a motor vehicle as defined under the m.v. act a driving licence was necessary for driving the above vehicle and as the 2nd appellant was not having a driving licence, the insurance company was not liable for the compensation due to the injured. 3. chapter ii of the m.v. act deals with the licencing of drivers of motor vehicles. section 3 stipulates the necessity of driving licence. section 10 of the m.v. act deals with the form and contents of a licence to driver. sub-section (1) says that the learners licence and driving licence shall be in such form as may be prescribed. sub-section (2) says that the learners licence and the driving licence shall express the class of vehicle or vehicles which the holder of the licence was entitled to drive. it mentions of the following classes of vehicles (a) motor cycle without gear, (b) motor cycle with gear (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor cycle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller and (g) motor vehicle of the specified description. the above classes do not include a power tiller and it was not specified too and as such i do not think that a driving licence is necessary for the operation of a power tiller which is not ordinarily used for transport purpose. the main purpose of the power tiller is for the agricultural work and for that purpose it requires movement. yet power tiller would come in category of a motor cycle and there by registration under the motor vehicles act was necessary. but for operating the above, the law does not contemplate the requirement of a driving licence as the vehicle itself does not provide any seat for accommodating a driver. hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that a driving licence under the m.v. act is not required for the operation of a power tiller has only to be accepted. the learned counsel for the respondent could not point out any provision of law or any circumstances so as to hold that a driving licence was required for the operation of the power tiller. but in respect of other vehicles law specifically mention of the requirements of a driving licence. 4. the learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that for riding certain motorised cycles a driving licence was not required though the general category of such vehicle would come within the ambit of section 3 which would impose the requirement of a driving licence. the learned counsel has drawn to the definition of a motorised cycle as defined in rule 2(n) of the kerala motor vehicles rules, 1989, wherein a motorised cycle having an engine capacity exceeding 35 cubic centimetres alone was included in the above class of vehicle. the law did not insist for holding a driving licence for the operation of the power tiller and hence the insurer cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation as the insurance company is liable to reimburse the injured. in the result this appeal is allowed. the entire compensation amount awarded by the tribunal shall be paid by the 2nd respondent, the national insurance company. the entire compensation amount shall be paid within two months from today.
Judgment:

R. Rajendra Babu, J.

1. The important question that has come up for consideration is whether a driving licence is necessary for operating a Power Tiller. Tilakan, the 2nd appellant, Tilakan was operating the Power Tiller bearing Reg. No. KL 4382 on 3.5.1991. While so, it hit against Ponnan the first respondent, herein causing some injuries. The Power Tiller belonged to the first appellant Co-operative Society. The injured 1st respondent filed OP (MV) 918/91 before the MACT Alleppey. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 32,000/- with interest at 12% from 27.6.1991 till realisation. The Tribunal exonerated National Insurance Company, the 3rd respondent from the liability for compensation holding that the operator of the Power Tiller did not have a valid driving licence, though there was a valid insurance coverage for the vehicle. The above award is under challenge at the instance of the owner and operator of the Power Tiller.

2. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was that a driving licence was not required by law, for operating a Power Tiller, though it was a motor vehicle as defined under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was argued that a driving licence could be insisted only in respect of the class of vehicles mentioned in Section 10(2) and as Power Tillers were not included in the above class of vehicles, no licence was necessary to operate the Power Tiller. It was further argued that there was no driving seat provided to the Power Tiller and only when there was a driving seat provided for in the case of the Power Tiller the vehicle was operated by holding its handle and the operator walking though the ground. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tiller being a motor vehicle as defined under the M.V. Act a driving licence was necessary for driving the above vehicle and as the 2nd appellant was not having a driving licence, the Insurance Company was not liable for the compensation due to the injured.

3. Chapter II of the M.V. Act deals with the licencing of drivers of Motor Vehicles. Section 3 stipulates the necessity of driving licence. Section 10 of the M.V. Act deals with the form and contents of a licence to driver. Sub-section (1) says that the learners licence and driving licence shall be in such form as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) says that the learners licence and the driving licence shall express the class of vehicle or vehicles which the holder of the licence was entitled to drive. It mentions of the following classes of vehicles (a) motor cycle without gear, (b) motor cycle with gear (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor cycle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller and (g) motor vehicle of the specified description. The above classes do not include a Power Tiller and it was not specified too and as such I do not think that a driving licence is necessary for the operation of a Power Tiller which is not ordinarily used for transport purpose. The main purpose of the Power Tiller is for the agricultural work and for that purpose it requires movement. Yet Power Tiller would come in category of a motor cycle and there by registration under the Motor Vehicles Act was necessary. But for operating the above, the law does not contemplate the requirement of a driving licence as the vehicle itself does not provide any seat for accommodating a driver. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that a driving licence under the M.V. Act is not required for the operation of a Power Tiller has only to be accepted. The learned counsel for the respondent could not point out any provision of law or any circumstances so as to hold that a driving licence was required for the operation of the Power Tiller. But in respect of other vehicles law specifically mention of the requirements of a driving licence.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that for riding certain Motorised Cycles a driving licence was not required though the general category of such vehicle would come within the ambit of Section 3 which would impose the requirement of a driving licence. The learned counsel has drawn to the definition of a Motorised Cycle as defined in Rule 2(n) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, wherein a Motorised Cycle having an engine capacity exceeding 35 cubic centimetres alone was included in the above class of vehicle. The law did not insist for holding a driving licence for the operation of the Power Tiller and hence the Insurer cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation as the Insurance Company is liable to reimburse the injured.

In the result this appeal is allowed. The entire compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be paid by the 2nd respondent, the National Insurance Company. The entire compensation amount shall be paid within two months from today.