Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary  ||  Delhi High Court: Deployment of CISF Personnel Shall be Based on Operational Requirements  ||  All. HC: Returning Unpaid Check With Endorsement of Account Closed Amounts to Dishnonor of Cheque  ||  Karnataka HC: Courts Should Ensure That Legal Procedures Are Not Abused in Order to Reduce Burden  ||  Utt. HC: Joining in Service Cannot Be Denied to Woman on The Ground of Her Pregnancy  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Stretch Protection u/a 21 to Those Posing Threat to Nation’s Sovereignty & Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Can’t Stop Student From Entering Exam Hall Once Admit Card Issued  ||  Supreme Court Asks Medical Colleges Either to Pay Stipend or Not Have Internship    

Jagdish Kumar Sood Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (06 Mar 2018)

“Light Motor Vehicle" would include a transport vehicle as per the weight

MANU/SC/0208/2018

Motor Vehicles

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed a claim for compensation filed by the third Respondent. The claim arose from the death of the husband of the Claimant on 4th January, 2009 as a result of an accident caused by a collision with an offending truck. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 4,08,000 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum. In an appeal filed by the third Respondent the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8,04,000. Interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum was awarded on the enhanced compensation.

The Tribunal absolved the insurer on the ground that, the vehicle involved in the accident was a Light Goods Vehicle. The driver had a licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of a specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle, the liability could not be fastened on the insurer. The Tribunal directed the insurer to pay in the first instance and allowed it to recover the compensation from the driver and the owner. The present appeal has been filed by the owner.

The High Court, while enhancing the compensation did not interfere with the order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer. The issue which arises before the Court is not res integra and is covered by a judgment of a three Judges of present Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited in which it has been held that, "Light Motor VEHICLE" as defined in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48) of Act. Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.

A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.

The appeal is allowed, the order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer shall accordingly stand set aside. The liability shall jointly and severally be fastened on the insurer, in addition to the owner and driver.

Relevant : Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663

Tags : AWARD   COMPENSATION   LIABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved