Sukhwinder Singh v. Pappi Mehta and Ors

IN T

SUKHWINDE

PAPPI MEHTA

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr for

Mr LR

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The Singh, who is

01.12.2005 pass short, 'the Tribu an amount of co was awarded t appellant-driver FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri Mohan was goin 08-AL-3429 wa the scooter and bearing registra THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA

FA

Da R SINGH

VERSUS A AND ORS

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate the appellant. r. Ranvir Singh Mander, Advocat Rs No. (ii),(vi), (vii) and (viii)of r r. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for -.-

HARMA, J. e present appeal has been prefe the driver of the offending sed by the learned Motor Accide unal') under Section 166 of the M ompensation of Rs.2,95,000/- alo to the claimant. However the r. N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that on ng alongwith his brother Balwin as going from village Nangal Sha when they reached near Chogi ation No. PB-08-R-9910 which w

JAB AND HARYANA ARH

AO-2412-2006 (O&M) ate of Decision : 06.11.2024

....APPELLANT

....RESPONDENTS EEPTI SHARMA te for respondent No.2. respondent Nos.11 and 12. ferred by the appellant-Sukhwin vehicle, against the award da ent Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar ( Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where ong with interest @ 7% per ann liability was fastened upon n 6.3.2004 at about 4:30 P.M., B nder Mohan on his scooter No. P ama to their house. He was driv itti Chowki, a jeep make Mahin was being driven by the appella

nder ated (for eby, num Brij PB-ving ndra ant-Sukhwinder Sin side. The appell the Brij Mohan injuries on the v and then to Saty remained admitt the appellant by injured Brij Moh by him in the ac

9.3.2004 at Pol deceased was 4 Vashav Karma T

3.

Up the factum of co

4.

Fro issues:- ngh in a rash and negligent mann lant without blowing any horn st n Mehta, as a result of which h various parts of his body. He wa yam Hospital where he remaine ted there from 6.3.2004 to 18.4 y driving the offending jeep in han Mehta ultimately died on 15 ccident. An FIR No. 52 was got ice Station Division No.8 unde 48 years old at the time of accid Tools Industries and was earning on notice of the claim petition, ompensation. om the pleading of the parties, "1. Whether Brij Mohan due to accident which too Chowk, Jalandhar, due to r make Mahindra PB-08-R-9 Singh? OPP

¶2Whether the claimant for, if so, to what extent and f

¶3Whether the present pe

¶4Whether driver was no so, its effect? OPR

ner, came from Lamma Pind Cho truck the jeep against the scooter he fell down and received multi as taken to Civil Hospital, Jaland ed in coma for about 30 days. .2004. The accident was caused a rash and negligent manner. T

5.7.2004 due to the injuries receiv t registered against the appellant er Section 279, 337, 338 IPC. T dent. He was the proprietor of M g Rs. 10,000/- per month. , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow received injuries and lateron d ok place on 6.3.2004 at Chog rash and negligent driving of J 9910, by its driver Sukhwin t is entitled to the claim as pray from whom? OPP etition is not maintainable? OPR ot holding a valid driving licence

owk r of iple dhar He d by The ved t on The M/s nied wing died gitti Jeep nder yed R e, if

5.

Aft record, the learn alongwith intere SUBMISSIONS

6.

The of the driver has insured and seco time of accident

7.

Per contends that th valid from 23.0 was not insured licence, since in jeep.

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

The

20.03.2003 and

22.03.2004. It i one. It is on re insured at the ti insurance policy the policy is da

¶5Whether the offending was not insured at the time of

¶6Relief." ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compens est @ 7% per annum. Hence the S OF THE COUNSELS OF TH e learned counsel for the appella s wrongly been fixed firstly on t ondly that the driver was not ha t. r contra, learned counsel for the he accident took place on 06.03

1.2003 to 22.01.2004, therefore, . He further contends that the dr n the licence word 'jeep' was n have heard learned counsel for ase. e accident took place on 06.03.2 the date of the expiry of the in is nowhere stated that the docum ecord that this was issued to th ime of the accident i.e on 06.03 y (Ex.R-2) is concerned, it is fr ated 03.08.2005, which apparen

g vehicle i.e. Jeep PB-08-R-99 of accident, if so, its effect? OPR he pleadings and the evidence sation to the tune of Rs.2,95,00 present appeal. HE PARTIES ant-driver contends that the liabi the ground that the vehicle was aving a valid driving licence, at e respondent – Insurance Compa

3.2004 and the policy Ex.R-2 w , at the time of accident, the vehi river was not having a valid driv not mentioned and he was driv the parties and perused the wh 2004. The cover note was issued nsurance on the cover note is da ment of insurance policy is forg he appellant, and the vehicle w

3.2004. So far as the validity of from 23.01.2003 to 22.01.2004 ntly shows that this document w

on 00/- ility not any icle ving ving hole d on ated ged prepared during beyond its expir period from 23.

03.08.2005 i.e Insurance policy the expiry of th would be defea prepared by th compensation. T Company is not very much insur (which is on rec

10.

So concerned, the l licence to drive and, therefore, m

11.

A authenticity of t licence.

12.

Fur accident took p licence on the da

13.

A Swaran Singh, of this Court no g the pendency of the claim pet ry date. A perusal of the Insuran

01.2003 to 22.01.2004, yet the i after a gap of nearly 1 year a y, which is not believable. If the he date of insurance policy, the ated. This discrepancy indicates he insurance company to av Thus, the argument of learned co t acceptable to this Court and it red at the time of the accident, w cord). far as the issue regarding valid learned Tribunal held that the ap a jeep and the driving licence w made the appellant liable to pay t perusal of the record shows t the driving licence and it is prov rther driving licence is valid from lace on 06.03.2004, therefore, t ate of the accident. reference to the judgment in

(2004) 3 SCC 297 may, therefo oted that the liability of the ins

tition. No insurance policy is va nce Policy shows that it covers issuance date of the policy is da and 8 months of the expiry of e insurance policies are issued a en the whole purpose of the pol that the document may have b oid the liability for paying ounsel for the respondent-Insura t is concluded that the vehicle w which is duly proved by cover n d driving licence of the appellan ppellant was not having any driv was to drive the scooter or car o the compensation. that there is no dispute regard ved on record to be genuine driv m 18.12.1997 to 14.06.2016 and the appellant had the valid driv National Insurance Co. Ltd. re be apposite. A three-judge ben surance company in relation to

alid ated after licy een ance note nt is ving only ding ving ving . v. owner depends discussed as und "7. veh driv diff driv is n jeep

¶89effe driv pre men veh mo gea veh

(g) in S are The mo "me cab tra on several factors. The issue o der:

If a person has been given hicle as specified therein, he can ving another type of vehicle wh fferent type. As for example, whe ving a light motor vehicle, he ca not necessary that he must hav p separately.

Section 3 of the Act casts an ective driving licence for the ty ve. Section 10 of the Act ena escribe forms of driving licences ntioned in sub-section (2) of the hicles described for which a driv re of them are: (a) motorcycle ar, (c) invalid carriage, (d) l hicle, (f) road roller, and motor vehicle of other specified Section 2 of the Act defines va e covered in broad types mention ey are "goods carriage", "heavy tor vehicle", "invalid carriage", edium goods vehicle", "medium b", "motorcycle", "omnibus", iler", "tourist vehicle", "tractor"

f lack of valid driving license w a licence for a particular type nnot be said to have no licence hich is of the same category bu en a person is granted a licence an drive either a car or a jeep an e driving licence both for car a n obligation on a driver to hold ype of vehicle which he intends ables the Central Government s for various categories of vehic e said section. The various types ver may obtain a licence for one without gear, (b) motorcycle w light motor vehicle, (e) transp d description. The definition cla arious categories of vehicles wh ned in sub-section (2) of Section y goods vehicle", "heavy passen "light motor vehicle", "maxi-ca passenger motor vehicle", "mot "private service vehicle", "se ", "trailer" and "transport vehic

e of for t of for nd it and d an s to t to cles s of e or with port ause hich

¶10nger ab", tor-emi-le". In wit con lice for driv "ma eac tak veh con cau nex insu bre

¶90of s con abo cau inc and wou of i claims for compensation for ac th regard to the conditions nsideration before the Tribunal ence for "motorcycle without ge which he has no licence. Cases ving licence for "light motor v axi-cab", "motor-cab" or "omnib ch case, on evidence led before ken whether the fact of the driver hicle but found driving another ntributory cause of accident. If o s caused solely because of som uses like mechanical failures an xus with the driver not possess urer will not be allowed to avo each of conditions concerning dr

We have construed and dete sub-section (2) of Section 149 of nditions, such as want of medic out age of the driver and the lik use of the accident, would b consequential deviation in the ma d inconsequential deviations w uld not constitute sufficient grou insurance to the third parties."

ccidents, various kinds of breac of driving licences arise l as a person possessing a driv ear", [sic may be driving a vehic s may also arise where a holder vehicle" is found to be driving bus" for which he has no licence the Tribunal, a decision has to r possessing licence for one type r type of vehicle, was the main on facts, it is found that the accid me other unforeseen or interven nd similar other causes having sing requisite type of licence, oid its liability merely for techni riving licence. ermined the scope of sub-clause f the Act. Minor breaches of lice cal fitness certificate, requirem ke not found to have been the dir be treated as minor breaches atter of use of vehicles. Such mi with regard to licensing conditi und to deny the benefit of covera

ches for ving cle] r of g a e. In o be e of n or dent ning g no ical

(ii) ence ment rect of nor ions

14.

Thi Company Ltd.,

04.10.2024 held "10 Tri i.e. driv not app Cou Com hol driv end sam is Court in FAO-3947-2007 ti , Chandigarh versus Asha d as under:-

¶0I do not find any infirmity in ibunal in rejecting the contentio Oriental Insurance Company, w ving licence to drive scooter, mo t three-wheeler. The issue raise pellant is no longer res-integra urt in the case of "Mukund D mpany" 2017(4) TAC 11, where lding a licence to drive 'light m ve a 'transport vehicle' of dorsement to drive the transport me are reproduced as under:- "46. Section 10 of the Act with respect to the class of v type of vehicles. In one class kinds of vehicles. If they fal separate endorsement is re light motor vehicle includes light motor vehicle licence ca including transport vehicles well the post amended pos

28.3.2001. Any other interpr definition of "light motor v

itled as 'The Oriental Insura Devi and Others' decided the reasoning given by the learn on of the appellant/respondent N with respect to the possessing of otorcycle, car, jeep and tractor a ed by the learned counsel for and decided by the Hon'ble Ap Dewangan vs. Oriental Insuran ein it was held that when a drive motor vehicle', he is competent f that category without spec t vehicle. The relevant paras of requires a driver to hold a lice vehicles and not with respect to s of vehicles, there may be differ ll in the same class of vehicles, equired to drive such vehicles. transport vehicle also, a holder an drive all the vehicles of the cl s. It was pre-amended position sition of Form 4 as amended retation would be repugnant to vehicle" in section 2(21) and

nce on ned No.2 f the and pex nce er is t to cific f the ence rent As r of lass n as FAO-2412-2006 (O&M) provisions of section 10(2)( other provisions and also th provisions. Even otherwise t transport vehicles from the and for light motor vehicle, hold good and apply for the and the expression in Secti Vehicle' would include m passenger motor vehicle, hea motor vehicle which earlier

(h) and our conclusion is f which wehave discussed. Th are referred to us thus:

(i) 'Light motor vehicl Act would include a t prescribed in section 2(48). Such transport definition of the lig AmendmentAct No.54/

(ii) A transport vehic weight of either of whi be a light motor vehic a road roller, 'unladen 7500 kg. and holder of "light motor vehicle" competent to drive a

(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 19 he forms which are in tune with the forms never intended to exclu category of 'light motor vehic the validity period of such lice transport vehicle of such class a ion 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transp medium goods vehicle, medi avy goods vehicle, heavy passen found place in section 10(2)(e) fortified by the syllabus and ru hus we answer the questions wh le' as defined in section 2(21) of transport vehicle as per the wei 2(21) read with section 2(15) a vehicles are not excluded from ght motor vehicle by virtue /1994. cle and omnibus, the gross veh ich does not exceed 7500 kg. wo cle and also motor car or tractor n weight' of which does not exc of a driving licence to drive class as provided in section 10(2)(d) transport vehicle or omnibus,

989, ude cles' ence also port ium nger ) to ules hich f the ight and of icle ould r or eed s of d) is FAO-2412-2006 (O&M) gross vehicle weight o or a motor car or tra weight" of which does no separate endorsem drive a transport vehi enumerated above. A 10(2)(d) continues to 54/1994 and 28.3.2001

(iii) The effect of the No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.

(e) to (h) of section goods vehicle" in sec motor vehicle in secti section 10(2)(g) and " section 10(2)(h) with substituted in sectio aforesaid substituted transport vehicle, from and section 2(41) of th

(iv) The effect of ame "transport vehicle" i which were substitu procedure to obtain d of class of "light moto as it was and has n requirement to obtai

of which does not exceed 7500 actor or road-roller, the "unlad not exceed 7500 kg. That is to s ment on the licence is required icle of light motor vehicle class A licence issued under sect o be valid after Amendment 1 in the form. amendment made by virtue of

11.1994 while substituting clau 10(2) which contained "medi ction 10(2)(e), medium passen ion 10(2)(f), heavygoods vehicle "heavy passenger motor vehicle expression 'transport vehicle' on 10(2)(e) related only to classes only. It does not exclu m the purview of section 10(2) he Act i.e. light motor vehicle. endment of Form 4 by insertion is related only to the categor uted in the year 1994 and driving licence for transport veh or vehicle" continues to be the sa ot been changed and there is n separate endorsement to dr

kg. den say, d to s as tion Act Act uses ium nger e in " in ' as ude )(d) n of ries icle ame

15.

Thi others, 2012 (1) "7. driv mo men doe not car Mo sep

16.

Thi Kumar and oth transport vehicle, and drive light motor vehi of such class without a is Court in Oriental Insurance ) PLR 397 held as under:- Coming to the question of v ving licence held by responden torcycle, scooter, car and t ntioned in the licence and, ther es not authorise respondent No. t a case where the vehicle being rrier or a transport vehicle. Jeep otor Vehicle (LMV) under sectio parate definition of jeep available is Court in National Insuranc hers, 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 242 "8. As regards the validity of been argued that responden licence for driving the offend drive Scooter, Motorcycle endorsement on it with rega regard, it may be observ principally are having same Vehicles. There is nothing directly traceable to the ho due to rash driving which l

- d if a driver is holding licence icle, he can drive transport veh any endorsement to that effect." e Co.Ltd. vs. Smt.Lalanwati a validity of the driving licence, nt no.1 authorised him to drive tractor. Jeep is not specifica refore, the licence on the face o .1 to drive the jeep. However, i driven by respondent No.1 is go p falls within the definition of Li on 2(21) of the Act and there is e in the Act." ce Company Ltd. versus San held as under:- of the driving licence Ex. R-1, it nt No. 1 was not holding a va ding vehicle as he had a licence and Car only and there is ard to driving of Jeep also. In ved that the Car and the J e mechanism, both are Light Mo to suggest that if accident w lding of proper licence but it w led to the bursting of the tyre. T

e to icle and ally of it it is ods ight s no njay has alid e to this Jeep otor FAO-2412-2006 (O&M) accident also did not take p that the driver was not holdi a similar proposition, a Full in National Insurance Co.L 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 485 : 2 :- The issue being no m elaboration. We may, Insurance Company c pay the compensation granted to the driver b vehicle but the vehicle different class of desc cause of accident was being for one class vehicle involved in the description. The obs Court presuppose that of which he might not holding a driving lic vehicle, and the drivin which licence was obt driven, was the same the vehicle is also sa Insurance Company

- place due to mechanical failure ing the requisite type of licence. l Bench of this Hon'ble High Co Ltd. v. Parveen Kumar and othe 005(1) PLR 230 observed as un more res integra, needs no furt , however, hasten to add that annot be absolved of its liability by simply pleading that the lice being for one class or description e involved in the accident was of cription, unless it is proved that s the licence granted to the dri or description of vehicle but e accident was of different class servations made by the Supre t if the driver was driving a veh be holding licence as such, but w cence of a different description ng method of both the vehicles, tained and the one which was be and when even the mechanism ame, the defence projected by with regard to the driver

e or On ourt ers, nder ther y to ence n of f the iver s or eme icle n of for eing m of

17.

In v this Court in the issue that a pers said to have no driving licence b possessing requisite ty to it. We thus overrule the v National Insurance Co if on facts, it is found because of some other like mechanical failur no nexus with driver licence, the insurer liability merely for concerning driving lic Insurance Company 149(2)(a)(ii) and pro and (5) of the Motor V if it is proved that th because the driver wa licence.

¶9The petitioner was holding Car and Scooter and the me to the mechanism of Jeep required to be learnt to drive view of the law laid down by t e above mentioned judgments, th son holding a licence to drive li o licence for driving jeep. It is both for car and jeep separately.

- ype of licence could be of no av view taken by the Division Bench Company Ltd. (supra) and hold t d that accident was caused so r unforeseen or intervening cau res and similar other causes hav r not possessing requisite type will not be allowed to avoid technical breach of conditi cence, the defence projected by y in context of Sect viso appended to sub-sections Vehicles Act, 1988 can succeed o he accident had taken place o as not possessing requisite type g a valid driving licence for driv echanism of the Car is quite sim and no separate technique w e the Jeep." the Hon'ble Supreme Court and here is no dispute with regard to ight motor vehicle (car), cannot s not necessary that he must h

vail h in that lely uses ving e of its ions tion

(4) only only e of ving ilar d by t be

18.

Acc

01.12.2005 is m compensation to

06.11.2024 G Arora

Whether s

Whether r cordingly, the present appeal modified to the extent that the ins o the claimants, as per ratio fixed

(

speaking/non-speaking : Speakin reportable

: Yes/No

- is allowed and the award da urance company is liable to pay d by the learned Tribunal. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ng