Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

F.A.O No. 2181 of 1995

Advocates

Mr. Ravinder Arora
Advocate.
Mr. Deepak Suri
Advocate.
Mr. L.M. Suri
Sr. Advocate

Judges

G.S Singhvi
S.S Sudhalkar, JJ.

Acts

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 1959 Act).
sub-section 2 of Section 8 of the 1939 Act
section 10 of the 1988 Act,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal was filed by the owner and driver of a vehicle against an award of Rs. 1,00,000/- passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani. The tribunal had made an award against the appellants but had absolved respondent No. 5 (the Insurance Company) from liability. Notice of motion in the appellate proceedings was issued to respondent No. 5 only. The accident occurred on 2 October 1992. The appellants and respondent No. 5 were represented and heard on the point of the insurer's liability. The tribunal's exoneration of the Insurance Company was founded on the tribunal's view that the driver's licence did not authorize driving a 'transport vehicle'. The licence in evidence (Ex. R.1) was for HMV (heavy motor vehicle) effective from 7 July 1991, and the vehicle involved was a truck (a heavy motor vehicle).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Insurance Company (respondent No. 5) was liable to pay compensation where the driver's licence did not expressly state an endorsement for driving a "transport vehicle" under the statutory regime applicable to the date of the accident.
Whether the tribunal correctly relied on precedents decided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (specifically sub-section 2 of Section 8) to absolve the insurer where the accident occurred after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had come into force.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

The appellants challenged only the tribunal's absolution of the Insurance Company, arguing that the tribunal erred in holding the insurer not liable.
They relied on the terms of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Section 10) applicable on the date of the accident and contended that Section 10 did not require an express endorsement that a licence was issued for driving a 'transport vehicle'.
They pointed out that the driver's licence (Ex. R.1) authorised driving of heavy motor vehicles from 7.7.1991 and thus covered driving the truck involved in the accident.

Respondent No. 5's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of respondent No. 5's legal arguments beyond that counsel for respondent No. 5 was heard on the matter.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi v. Ranquba, 1994 A.C.J 1280	Held that where a driver held a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but was driving a transport vehicle, and there was no specific endorsement authorising him to drive as a paid employee a transport vehicle on the date of the accident, he was not duly licensed to drive that vehicle (pre-1988 Act reasoning under the 1939 Act).	The court distinguished and declined to follow this authority for the present case because it arose under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (sub-section 2 of Section 8), which required specific endorsements; the present accident occurred under the 1988 Act (Section 10), which does not require such an endorsement. The tribunal's reliance on this case was held to be erroneous.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. K. Subramaniam, 1991 A.C.J 625	Held that a driver's licence which was endorsed after the date of the accident authorising him to drive a transport vehicle as a paid employee meant he was not validly licensed on the date of the accident; insurer was not liable (pre-1988 Act reasoning under the 1939 Act).	The court observed that this authority was decided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and therefore is not applicable to an accident occurring on 2.10.1992 when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 governed licensing requirements. Reliance on this precedent by the tribunal was held to be misplaced.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the statutory provisions governing driving licences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically Section 10, which prescribes the form and contents of licences and enumerates classes of vehicles a licence may entitle the holder to drive. The court noted that Section 10 (as prevailing on the date of the accident, 2.10.1992) does not require an express endorsement that the licence is issued for driving a 'transport vehicle'.

The court contrasted the 1988 Act with the earlier Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (referred to in the opinion as the 1959 Act by typo), where sub-section 2 of Section 8 expressly required that a driving licence specify whether the holder was entitled to drive as a paid employee and whether he was entitled to drive a transport vehicle. The precedents relied upon by the tribunal (Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi v. Ranquba and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Subramaniam) were decided under that earlier statute and turned on the then-existent requirement for specific endorsements.

Because the accident in the present case occurred after the 1988 Act had come into force and the 1988 Act's Section 10 did not contain the endorsement requirement, the court held that lack of a specific 'transport vehicle' endorsement could not be the basis to conclude the driver was not duly licensed. The court observed that the driver's licence (Ex. R.1) authorised HMV from 7.7.1991 and the vehicle involved was a truck (heavy motor vehicle), so the licence covered the vehicle driven at the time of the accident. On that statutory and factual basis the tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company by relying on pre-1988 authorities.

The court also noted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was subsequently amended in 1994, but that amendment was irrelevant because the accident predated it; the applicable statutory text for determining licensing requirements remained Section 10 of the 1988 Act as it stood on the date of the accident.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is allowed. The award of the tribunal insofar as it exonerated the Insurance Company (respondent No. 5) is set aside. Respondent No. 5 shall be jointly and severally liable, along with the appellants, to pay the awarded amount to respondents No. 1 to 4.

Implications: The direct consequence of the decision is that the Insurance Company must share liability for the compensation awarded by the tribunal. The opinion does not purport to set a broader new precedent beyond applying the 1988 Act to the facts of this case; it distinguishes and refuses to apply earlier authorities decided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Show full summary ...

Pratap Singh v. Smt. Sharmila

S.S Sudhalkar, J.:— This appeal has been filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, by which an award of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made against them.

2. In this case notice of motion was issued to respondent No. 5 only.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

4. The challenge to the award during the arguments was only regarding the liability of the Insurance Company. It is the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the award of the Tribunal is erroneous to the extent that it has absolved the Insurance Company, respondent No. 5 from the liability to pay compensation. The reason for the tribunal holding that the Insurance Company was not liable is that the driving licence of the driver was not issued for driving a ‘transport vehicle’. The learned tribunal has relied on the case of Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi v. Ranquba, 1994 A.C.J 1280. It is held by the High Court of Gujarat in that case that the driver was holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle whereas he was driving a transport vehicle and in the absence of a specific endorsement on the date of accident authorising him to drive as a paid employee a transport vehicle, he was not duly licensed to drive the said vehicle. The tribunal has also relied on the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. K. Subramaniam, 1991 A.C.J 625, wherein it has been held that the driver's licence was endorsed after the date of accident authorising him to drive a transport vehicle as a paid employee and, therefore, the driver cannot be said to be holding a valid driving licence to drive the tempo on the date of accident and the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation.

5. For appreciating the point involved in this case, it will be proper to see the provisions regarding driving licence. In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1988 Act’) the said provision is under Section 10, which is reproduced as under:

“Section 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.

(2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes namely:

(a) motor cycle without gear;

(b) motor cycle with gear;

(d) light motor vehicle;

(e) medium goods vehicle;

(f) medium passenger motor vehicle;

(g) heavy goods vehicle;

(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle;

(i) road-roller;

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.”

6. The accident in the present case took place on 2.10.1992 At that time the 1988 Act was prevalent and in the requirement of section 10 of the 1988 Act, there is no mention that a licence should expressly have endorsement that it is issued for driving a transport vehicle. It can be seen that the cases of Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi v. Ranquba and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. K. Subramaniam (supra) are with regard to the accident which took place before the 1988 Act came into force, and the prevalent Act on the dates of accident in the said cases was Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1959 Act’). The relevant provision is under sub-section 2 of Section 8 of the 1939 Act which is reproduced below:

“Section 8(2): A driving licence shall specify whether the holder is entitled to drive as a paid employee and whether he is entitled to drive a transport vehicle and shall further be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:

(a) motor cycle;

(b) invalid carriage,

(d) medium goods vehicle;

(e) medium passenger motor vehicle;

(ei) heavy goods vehicle;

(eii) heavy passenger motor vehicle;

(f) road-roller;

(g) motor vehicle of a specified description.”

7. The above provisions shows that the driving licence was required to specify that the driver was entitled to drive as a paid employee and whether he was entitled to drive a transport vehicle in addition to the other classes of the vehicles mentioned in the said sub-section.

8. The 1988 Act was further amended in the year 1994. However, that amendment is not of any importance so far as this case is concerned because the accident in this case had taken place before the said amendment.

9. Therefore, not mentioning the category of transport vehicle in the driving licence of the driver cannot lead to a conclusion that on the date of accident in question, the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. The driving licence Ex. R.1 is for HMV with effect from 7.7.1991 and the vehicle involved in this case is a truck which is a heavy motor vehicle and, therefore, the licence covers the driving of such a vehicle. The said licence cannot, therefore, be said to be not meant for the vehicle which the driver was driving at the time of accident in question. The Tribunal has grossly erred in relying on the authorities which were under the 1939 Act. We, therefore, find that the award of the tribunal so far it exonerates the responsibility of the Insurance Company-respondent No. 5 from the payment of compensation deserves to be set aside and the award shall have to be made against the Insurance Company also.

10. In view of the above reasons this appeal is allowed. The award of the learned tribunal so far as it exonerates the insurance company is set aside and respondent No. 5 shall also be jointly and severally liable along with the appellants to pay the awarded amount to respondents No. 1 to 4.

Pratap Singh v. Smt. Sharmila

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

Respondent No. 5's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Pratap Singh v. Smt. Sharmila

Comments