Supreme Court
Case Details
MACApp. 82/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.R. SARMA Heard Mr. R. Goswami learned counsel appearing for the appellant also heard Mr. S.K. Goswami learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Also heard Mr. A.K. G oswami learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. By this appeal the appellant who is the insurer of the offending vehicle. There is the vehicle bearing registration No. AS 01/AA-1140(auto van) has challenged t he judgment and order dated 09.09.2011 passed by the learned member Motor Accide nt Claimant Tribunal Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 839/2007 whereby and wher eunder the learned Member awarded compensation of Rs. 1,58,500/- with interest thereon @ 6% in favour of the claimants respondent Nos. 1 and 2, whose son died in the vehicular accident which took place on 25.02.2007, involving the above m entioned offending vehicle. The judgment and award has been challenged by the in surer on the ground that the driver of the said Auto Rickshaw van, i.e., 3 wheel er had no license to drive three wheeler vehicle in as much he had the license to drive light motor vehicle and High Motor Vehicle including public service veh icle. It is contended, on behalf of the appellant, that the Auto Van being drive n by a person i.e., a driver without having proper license, the insurer that is the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation and as such the learned Mem ber MACT committed error by directing the appellant to pay the compensation, aw arded in the said MAC case No. 839/2007. Mr. R. Goswami learned counsel, appear ing for appellant, referring to the provisions of Section 10(2) of the MVA 198 8 has submitted that license to drive the vehicle as mentioned in Section 10(2) (a),( b), (c), (d), (e), (I) and (j) are issued by the transport authority and t hat no license was issued to the driver to drive a three wheeler. In support of his contention the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, h as referred to the decision held in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sivammal and others, reported in 2009 ACJ 1081. In the said case the driver having a driving license to drive light motor vehicl e had driven an auto rickshaw which was the offending vehicle. While allowing th e appeals the Supreme Court observed that various types of licenses are issued f or driving various types of vehicles and that the validity of the license can no t be determined on the basis of the weight of the vehicle, in as much as, vario us types of vehicles with different mechanism, driving skill and capacity to bal ance the vehicle for the purpose of driving. It has also been that the driver of the four wheeler cannot be presumed to know how to drive two wheeler which
Legal Reasoning
essentially requires capacity to balance the vehicle. In view of the above decision, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the ap pellant, has submitted that as the driver of the offending vehicle, in the case at hand, was not having a license to drive a three wheeler or auto van the insu rer is not liable to pay the compensation. Refuting the said argument, advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the ap pellant, Mr. S.K. Goswami learned counsel appearing for the respondent referring to Clauses 21/47/14 of Section 2 and Section 10(2) (c) of the MV Act has submit ted that there is no provision for issuing separate license to a three wheeler a nd that the license to drive light motor vehicle, transport and goods vehicle is sufficient to drive an auto van, or auto rickshaw. Mr. S.K. Goswami in support of his contention has relied upon on the decisions held in case of Oriental I nsurance Company Ltd Vs Angad Kol and others reported in 2009 ACJ 1411 and New India Insurance company Ltd Vs Balakkrishnan Vs reported 2012 ACJ 2441. In the case of Balak Krishnan (supra) a passenger auto rickshaw hit a child res ulting his death. The driver of the offending vehicle had license to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The insurance company disputed their liability on the ground tha t the driver was not authorized to drive a transport vehicle. While dismissing the said appeal, preferred by the insurance company, the Suprem e Court observed that the passenger auto rickshaw was a Light Motor Vehicle with in the definition provided by the Act. In the case of Angad Kol (supra) the insu rance company challenged the award on the ground that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license in as much as he was driving a good trans port vehicle having a license to drive Light Motor Vehicle for 20 years. The Sup reme Court observed that had the license been grated for transport vehicle the t enure of license would not have exceeded three years. In the case at hand the li cense was given for three years. Section 14 (2) (a) provides the provision to gr ant a license to drive a transport vehicle for a period of three years. In view of the above decisions, held by the Supreme Court it can be understood that a d river, who has a valid license to drive LMV or HMV for a period of three years [ under Section 14 (2) (a)] is authorized to drive a light goods vehicle or transp ort vehicle. Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of this case as w ell as the terms and conditions of the driving license it is found that the lice nse being given to drive LMV/HMV for a period of three years the petitioner was authorized to drive a transport vehicle or a goods carriage. Therefore, there is no difficulty in understanding that the concerned driver had the valid license
Decision
to drive the offending auto van, which was a transport vehicle. In view of the above, discussion I have no hesitation in holding that the learne d Member MACT committed no error by awarding the compensation requiring the insu rance company to pay the same in favour of the claimants. Therefore, I find no m erit in this appeal. Hence this appeal stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant is allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit of 25,000/-.