S.B Sinha, J.— Leave granted.
2. The appellant, National Insurance Company is before us, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 14-7-2003, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in MFA No. 7788 of 2002 dismissing the appeal preferred against an award dated 17-9-2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (“the Tribunal”, for short) in MVC No. 124 of 2000.
3. The fact of the matter relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal is as under:
The vehicle involved in the accident was a Matador van bearing Registration No. KA 23 2890. It had a “goods carriage” permit granted in terms of Form 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was insured with the appellant. The said vehicle met with an accident on 9-12-1999 causing death of one Gangawwa, wife of Respondent 1 herein. A contention was raised on behalf of the appellant that the driver of the said vehicle did not possess an effective licence to drive a transport vehicle.
4. An issue (being Issue 3), inter alia, was framed in that behalf before the Tribunal, which reads as under:
“Whether R-3 proves that driver of offending vehicle was not an authorised person to drive the same?”
5. The learned Tribunal in support of its award on Issue 3, held:
“DW 1 in his cross-examination admitted that offending vehicle is authorised to transport 3500 kg goods. Further, in his cross-examination it was stated that LMV means transport vehicle of unladen weight which does not exceed 7500 kg. Ext. D-2 at Column 12 clearly shows that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle is 3500 kg. Thereby it is very much clear that said unladen weight of the offending vehicle is much less than 7500 kg as admitted by DW 1 in his cross-examination which is also the effect as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. So when the unladen weight of the offending vehicle is less than 7500 kg RW 1 driver who is having DL as per Ext. D-3 is certainly authorised to drive the offending vehicle. The decision relied upon by advocate for the petitioners at Serial No. 2 ruling in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shivanna (2000) 5 Kar LJ 473 (DB), our own Hon'ble High Court had clearly held that where offending vehicle is weighing 4960 kg driven by a person having DL to drive LMV, there is no breach of insurance policy, as statute classifies vehicle weighing below 7500 kg as LMVs and insurer is liable to satisfy award in respect of accident that occurred when the vehicle was being driven by driver holding such licence. So in view of the decision of the Division Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court and also the decision of the Supreme Court referred to at Sl. No. 1 by the advocate for the petitioners it is very much clear that RW 1 is having valid DL as per Ext. D-3 and the offending vehicle's unladen weight is 3500 kg is certainly was having effective and valid DL and so R-3 has failed to prove Issue 3 and accordingly I answer the same in the negative.”
6. The High Court on an appeal preferred by the appellant herein opined:
“Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, questioning the liability, contended that the driver did not possess a valid licence to drive LMV. According to the respondents, the driver had driving licence to drive LMV, a transport vehicle. According to the appellant, the vehicle in question involved in the accident is a transport vehicle. The said contention cannot be accepted by this Court. In view of the fact that the claimants are third parties even on the ground that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy, the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to contend that it has no liability. Accordingly, I do not see any merit in this appeal.”
7. Mr Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that a “light motor vehicle” cannot be a “transport vehicle” within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. It was submitted that for the purpose of grant of licence for driving a vehicle, an application has to be filed in Form 4, whereafter only a licence is granted in Form 6. Learned counsel contended that the said forms have been prescribed in terms of Rules 14 and 16 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and on a perusal thereof as also the aforementioned forms, it would be clear that a “light motor vehicle” does not answer the description of a “transport vehicle”.
8. Mr S.N Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the contention raised herein by the appellant has neither been raised before the Tribunal nor before the High Court. In any event, it was urged, that keeping in view the definition of the “light motor vehicle” as contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”, for short), a light goods carriage would come within the purview thereof.
9. A “light goods carriage” having not been defined in the Act, the definition of the “light motor vehicle” clearly indicates that it takes within its umbrage both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle.
10. Strong reliance has been placed in this behalf by the learned counsel in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 620
11. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles, is a complete code.
12. Section 2 of the Act provides for interpretation of the terms contained herein. It employs the words “unless the context otherwise requires”. Section 2(16) of the Act defines “heavy goods vehicle” to mean “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”.
13. Section 2(21) defines “light motor vehicle” and Section 2(23) defines “medium goods vehicle” as under:
“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 7500 kilograms;
(23) ‘medium goods vehicle’ means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle;”
14. Section 3 of the Act is in the following terms:
“3. Necessity for driving licence.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motorcycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.”
15. The Central Government has framed rules known as the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
16. The word “form” has been defined in Rule 2(e) to mean a form appended to the Rules:
“Form 4
I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description:
(d) Light motor vehicle
(e) Medium goods vehicle
(g) Heavy goods vehicle
(j) Motor vehicle of the following description.”
After amendment the relevant portion of Form 4 reads as under:
“Form 4
I apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description:
(d) Light motor vehicle
(e) Transport vehicle
(j) Motor vehicle of the following description.”
17. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4, for a licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorising the same in nine types of vehicles.
18. Clause (e) provides for “transport vehicle” which has been substituted by GSR 221(E) with effect from 28-3-2001. Before the amendment in 2001, the entries “medium goods vehicle” and “heavy goods vehicle” existed which have been substituted by “transport vehicle”. As noticed hereinbefore, “light motor vehicles” also found place therein.
19. “Light motor vehicle” is defined in Section 2(21) and, therefore, in view of the provision, as then existed, it included a light transport vehicle. Form 6 provides for the manner in which the licence is to be granted, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:
“Authorisation to drive transport vehicle
Number………Date……
Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect from…….
Badge number ………
Signature
Designation of the licensing
authority.
Name and designation of the authority who
conducted the driving test.”
20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that “transport vehicle” has now been substituted for “medium goods vehicle” and “heavy goods vehicle”. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.
21. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law.
22. For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand only).