T.Bhoomanna v. K.Ramesh & Ors.

Judgment

This is an appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle against the Award, dated 06-12-2004 in O.P.No.960 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, at Adilabad, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.46,871/- towards compensation in favour of the first respondent herein (claimant). The challenge is to the extent of the order fastening liability on the appellant being the owner of the vehicle and directing recovery by the second respondent herein. On 12-09-1999, when the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-1-9503, a Tractor bearing registration No.AP-1-3308 of which the appellant is the owner, driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor vehicle, as a consequence of which, the claimant sustained injuries.

He, therefore, sought compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-. The appellant remained ex parte. The second respondent – insurance company obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in I.A.No.946 of 2000 and contested the matter on merits. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A15. The second respondent, while admitting that the offending tractor was insured under Policy No.6300622 valid from 25-11-1998 to 24-11-1999 (date of accident : 12-09-1999) and the said policy was subject to certain conditions and also subject to the statutory defences available under Sections 147 and 149 of the Act, denied the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the quantum of compensation.

The Tribunal on a consideration of the material placed before it, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. On the basis of exhibits A6, A8, A9 and A11 to A15, which relate to the treatment of the claimant, awarded a compensation of Rs.46,871/-. As Ex.A4 driving licence related to Light Motor Vehicles only, fastened liability only on the appellant (owner of vehicle). However, following the judgment of the Apex Court in

Pramod Kumar Agrawal and others Vs. Smt.Mushtar Begum and others[1] and the judgment of this Court in New India Insurance Company Limited, Guntur Vs. Smt.Syed Jaheera and Others[2], the Tribunal directed that the second respondent – Insurance Company to pay and recover the same from the appellant. Aggrieved by the order which excluded the second respondent from its liability and fastening liability only to the appellant, this appeal is filed. Heard the counsel appearing for the concerned parties. The Issues relating to rash and negligence and the quantum of compensation are not in dispute. The solitary contention of Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the offending tractor is a light motor vehicle and Ex.A4 Driving Licence which authorizes to drive a light motor vehicle possessed by the driver cannot be said to be an invalid licence. He would further contend that the finding of the Tribunal that the offending vehicle is a heavy motor vehicle is not based on record. He would, therefore contend that absolving the second respondent from its liability is not sustainable. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that no one connected with Ex.A4 driving licence was examined, hence no reliance can be placed on the said document. Learned counsel would further contend that there is no evidence on record that the Tractor alone (without trailer) was involved in the accident, as such it has to be presumed that the Tractor and the trailer, both were involved in the accident. Such tractor-trailer combination is a heavy goods vehicle but it cannot be treated as a light motor vehicle. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the light motor vehicle licence, Ex.A4, since does not authorize driving heavy motor vehicle, must be construed as ineffective licence. These contentions are liable to be rejected at threshold. The genuineness of Ex.A-4, driving licence was not questioned and it was marked without any protest by the 2nd respondent. In fact, it built up its defence on the ground that it was a Light Motor Vehicle Licence. Similarly it was not the case of the 2nd respondent that there was a trailer attached to the tractor and both involved in the accident. There is no evidence on record that the tractor-trailer combination was involved in the accident. It would appear from the judgment of the Tribunal that the paties admitted that the offending vehicle is a heavy motor vehicle and on such premise, the Tribunal proceeded with the matter. A perusal of the claims statement and the counter of the 2nd respondent and the evidence on record would show that there is no such admission by the parties. On the other hand, the case of both the parties is that tractor alone was involved in the accident. It is therefore evident that the Tribunal considered the matter on a wrong premise. In the light of the contentions, the points for considerations are: (1) Whether the offending vehicle ‘tractor’ is a heavy motor vehicle; (2) If not, Whether the light motor vehicle driving licence held by the driver is sufficient and valid; and (3) Whether the second respondent, insurance company, is also jointly and severally liable. The provisions to the extent relevant to decide the dispute are as follows : Sub-Section 21 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act defines light motor vehicle as follows : “(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;” Sub-Section 16 defines heavy goods vehicle as follows : “(16) “heavy goods vehicle” means 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;” Sub-Section (44) of Section 2 of the Act defines ‘Tractor’ as follows: (44) "tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller; Sub-Section (48) of Section 2 defines “Unladen Weight” as follows: (48) "unladen weight" means the weight of a vehicle or trailer including all equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle or trailer when working, but excluding the weight of a driver or attendant; and where alternative parts or bodies are used the unladen weight of the vehicle means the weight of the vehicle with the heaviest such alternative part or body; From a reading of Sub-Section (21), which defines ‘light motor vehicle’ and Sub-Section (16), which defines ‘heavy goods vehicle’ read with Sub-Section (44) and (48) above, it is evident that a tractor could be a light motor vehicle and also a heavy goods vehicle. It falls into the category of light motor vehicle if its unladen weight does not exceed 7500 K.Gs. and if the unladen weight exceeds 12000 K.Gs., it falls under the category of ‘heavy goods vehicle’. In the instant case, Ex.A3 is the Form of Certificate of Registration in respect of the offending tractor. In column No.1 the vehicle is described as “LMV Tractor”. In column No.4 against unladen weight it is mentioned as “1870 K.Gs.”. By description and the prescribed unladen weight, the offending vehicle undoubtedly falls in the category of ‘light motor vehicle’ only. It is therefore to be held that the finding that the offending vehicle is a heavy motor vehicle is not correct. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. Chapter-2 of the Act provides for licence of drivers of motor vehicles. Section 3 mandates that no person shall drive motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a motor cab or motor cycle), hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Section 2 or Section 75 unless the driving licence specifically entitles so to do. Section 10 of the Act describes the Forms and contents of the licences. Sub Section (2) of Section 10 describes that driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, viz., (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller; and (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. Section 11 provides for additions to driving licence. A person holding a driving licence to drive any class or description of motor vehicles may apply and obtain additional authorization to drive other class or description of motor vehicles added to the existing licence. Chapter 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 provides for Forms and Procedure relating to the driving licence. As per Rule 10 of the Rules, an application for grant of a learners licence shall be made in Form-2 and under Rule 13 of the Rules, such licence should be issued in Form 3. As per Rule 14, an application for driving licence is made in Form 4 and an international licence in Form 6-A and under Rule 16 of the Rules, such licence shall be issued in Form 6 and 6-A respectively. As per Rule 17, any application for addition of another class of motor vehicle to the driving licence to be made in Form 8. Form 6 enumerates the classes of vehicles as enumerated in Section 10 of the Act. The corresponding Form 6 is the authorization to drive the aforesaid class/classes of vehicles. This is the legal frame of driving licence under motor vehicles Act, 1988. Ex.A4 is the driving licence of the driver K.Vijaya Kumar, who was the driver of the tractor at the time of the accident. A perusal of the licence shows that he is authorized to drive light motor vehicle and the licence is valid from 14-05-1999 to 13-05-2019. Therefore, it is to be held that the said licence is sufficient and a valid driving licence to drive the tractor as on the date of accident. The Point No.2 is answered accordingly. From the discussion above, as it is held that the Tractor is only a light motor vehicle and that the driving licence is valid, it has to be held that both the appellant and the second respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. As a consequence, the direction to the extent permitting the second respondent to recover the amount after payment is not sustainable. The Point No.3 is answered accordingly. The Award in O.P.No.960 of 1999, dated 06-12-2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, at Adilabad, is therefore modified holding that both the appellant (respondent No.1 in the O.P.) and the second respondent are jointly and severally liable. The Impugned Award is modified to the extent above and the Appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. It is represented by Sri Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, that the Insurance Company has already paid the amounts to the first respondent and filed E.P.No.8 of 2007 against the appellant for recovery as per the orders in O.P. It is also represented that pursuant to interim orders of this Court, the appellant has also deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/-. As the appeal is now allowed and the Award is modified, the appellant may place a copy of this order in the E.P. and seek appropriate orders absolving him. Consequent thereupon, the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited may be directed to be refunded to the appellant and get it closed. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 24th June, 2010 Kvr/Skmr [1] L.C. ACR 2004 (1) SC 321 [2] 2004 (6) ALT 25