Dat v. CORAM
Case Details
FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -1- IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ARH CHANDIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA AT 225 Om Parkash FAO FAO No.4184 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision:04.11.2025 Dat ...Appellant d Ors Dharma and Ors ... Respondents Versus CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Mr. S for th for Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondents. Non *** *** AMARINDER S RAL) DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been The been preferred by pellant- the appellant superdar/owner o wner of the insured/offending vehicle award ehicle challenging the impugned award dated 16.05.2001 5.2001 passed by the learned Motor A otor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipa Panipat (for short, ‘the ‘the learned Tribunal’), whereby eby while awarding compensation o tion of Rs.1,70,000/- alo along with interest @ 9% per annu ants on er annum in favour of the claimants on account of the d
Legal Reasoning
the death of Smt. Makri Devi in a i in a motor vehicular accident, it ha has granted recovery overy rights to respondent No.6-insura insurance company against him. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are Succ ut 5:00 se are that on 11.04.1998 at about 5:00 P.M., Smt. Mak . Makri Devi, aged about 50 to 55 ndson- o 55 years, along with her grandson Sudesh Kumar ( mar (daughter’s son) was going to v g to village Nangal Kheri to visit he isit her daughter. After a fter alighting from a bus at the bus s eri, and bus stop of village Nangal Kheri, and while crossing t sing the G.T. Road, a Canter bearin 0556 bearing registration No.DL-1LB-0556 (hereinafter refe r referred to as the offending v ing vehicle), driven by responden ondent No.1/driver in a in a rash and negligent manner, cam veered er, came from the Panipat side, veered PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -2- onto the kacha ha portion of the road and hit Smt. f which Smt. Makri Devi, as a result of which she sustained grie ed grievous injuries and succumbed to bed to her injuries en route to the Civi e Civil Hospital, Panipat anipat. FIR No.188 dated 11.04.1998 .1998 under Sections 279 and 304-A o A of the IPC was re was registered at Police Station C ion Chandni Bagh, Panipat, agains against respondent No.1 t No.1-driver of the offending vehicle ehicle. The claimants, being the lega e legal representatives o tives of the deceased, filed a claim pe aim petition seeking compensation fo tion for her untimely de ly death. The learned Tribunal, afte nce on al, after appreciating the evidence on record, assessed essed her monthly income at ₹2000/ 10 and 000/-, applied a multiplier of 10 and after deducting o ting one-third towards personal expen nsation expenses, awarded total compensation of ₹1,70,000/-, , inclusive of ₹10,000/- toward g with owards funeral expenses, along with interest @ 9% pe 9% per annum from the date of filing isation, filing of the petition till its realisation holding the respo respondents before it jointly and seve d severally liable. 3. The learned counsel for the app The e appellant–owner contends that th hat the learned Tribunal ibunal erred in granting recovery righ holding ry rights to the insurer and in holding that the accident cident occurred due to the rash and n and negligent driving of driver of th r of the offending vehicle vehicle. It is further argued that the c with t the compensation of ₹1,70,000/- with interest @9% pe 9% per annum is excessive, as the de the deceased being an elderly lady o lady of more than 55 ye 55 years, was not substantially con y contributing to the household. It i d. It is urged that the fin the finding regarding invalidity of the of the driving licence is perverse, sinc e, since the driver posses possessed a valid and effective LMV li cident. MV licence at the time of the accident In terms of Secti f Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles hicles Act, 1988, a light motor vehicl vehicle includes transpo ransport vehicle, unladen weight of 500 ght of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms, and h and hence the insurer failed to prove prove any breach of policy. In suppor support of his contention tention, he relied upon the judgment p ment passed by Constitution Bench o ench of the Hon’ble Sup le Supreme Court in M/s Bajaj Allian . Ltd. lliance General Insurance Co. Ltd PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -3- Vs. Rambha Dev Devi (2025) 3 SCC 95. The appella appellant, therefore, seeks setting asid g aside of the impugned ppeal. ugned award by way of instant appeal. 4. There is no representation on beha Ther behalf of respondent No.6-insuranc surance company. The a The appeal is of the year 2002, reco , records of which had burnt in a fir n a fire incident occurred curred in this Court and the papers w pers were ordered to be reconstructed tructed. Therefore, keepin keeping in view the fact that the appe e appeal is of the year 2002, this Cour s Court proceeds to disp o dispose of the same with the assist assistance of learned counsel for th for the appellant and the nd the records available. 5. Having heard the learned counsel fo Hav nsel for the appellant and upon perusa perusal of the material on rial on record, the following issue aris ue arises for determination:- “Whether the driver, who was hold “Wh holding a driving licence (Ex. R- -2) for the ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ categ for category of vehicles, was competen etent and duly authorised to drive the and as a he offending vehicle described as a ‘Canter’, being a transport vehicle ‘Can icle?” 6. The term ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ ha The le’ has been defined under Section 2 tion 2(21) of the Motor Vehicl Vehicles Act, 1988, which is reproduc roduced as under:- “Light Motor Vehicle means a tra “Lig a transport vehicle or omnibus th s the gross vehicle weight of either of wh gros f which, or a motor car or tractor o or or road-roller the unladen weight of road xceed t of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms.” 7,50 Further, Section 2(23) defines a Furt nes a “Medium Goods Vehicle” a le” as “Medium Goods Vehicle means an “Me an a s any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods ligh oods vehicle.” Similarly, Section 2(16) defines a “H Simil s a “Heavy Goods Vehicle” as under: nder:- under:- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -4- “Heavy Goods Vehicle means any g “Hea ny goods carriage the gross vehicl hicle weight of which, or a tractor or a r weig a road-roller the unladen weight o ht of any of which, exceeds 12,000 kilogra any o ograms.” Section 2(47) defines a “Transport V Secti port Vehicle” as under:- “Transport Vehicle means a public s “Tra iage, lic service vehicle, a goods carriage an educational institution bus or a pr an ed a private service vehicle.” 7. From a combined reading of aforesa From aforesaid provisions, it is evident that t that a transport vehicle ehicle, unladen weight of which does within does not exceed 7500 kgs falls within the definition of ion of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ and the nd therefore, no separate endorsemen sement with respect to ct to authorization to drive a transp transport vehicle of that category gory is required. Whil While dealing with the issue whe licence here a driver holding a licence authorized to dr to drive Light Motor Vehicle was e was driving a Tata 407 Canter, nter, a Division Bench o ench of the Karnataka High Court (Dh rt (Dharwad Bench) in The Divisiona ional Manager, Orien riental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. I MFA v. Israr Ahamad & Ors., MFA No.101323/2017 2017 (MV) decided on 03.03.2020 w laid .2020, while relying on the law laid down by the H the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M Mukund Dewangan v. Orienta iental Insurance Co. L o. Ltd., AIR 2017 SC 3668, has of any has held that in the absence of any evidence from th rom the insurer to establish that gross gross weight of the offending Cante Canter exceeded 7500 k 500 kilograms, the driver holding a s duly lding a valid LMV licence was duly authorised to dri to drive the said vehicle and conseq t avoid onsequently, the insurer cannot avoid liability on this g this ground. The relevant paragraph are graphs of the aforesaid judgement are reproduced herei herein:- “8. I 8. It is the contention of the lear llant- learned counsel for the appellant insurer that the said driving licence insur ence is a light motor vehicle licenc cence but the vehicle involved is 407 Cante but t anter TATA motor vehicle that he i he is not authorized to drive the said veh not a ision vehicle. But, in view of the decision PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -5- of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cas of th V/s. e case of Mukundan Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance Company Lim Orien 7 SC Limited, reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, that if the driver of the offend 3668 ffending vehicle if he is having ligh light motor vehicle driving licence, then moto hen under such circumstances he i he is also competent to drive the oth also other vehicles. He can drive i ve it irrespective of the fact whether it is irres it is used for a private purpose or fo r for the purpose of hire or reward or fo the p said r for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. This proposition of law has vehic has been observed by the Hon’bl n’ble Apex Court at para Nos.45 and 46 w Apex 46 which reads as under: “45. Transport vehicle has bee Act, to mean a public service educational institution bus or a service vehicle has been define motor vehicle used or adapted passengers for hire or reward a cab, contract carriage, and s which is also a transport vehic mean a motor vehicle construct the carriage of goods, or any mo adapted when used for the ca submitted that a person holdin vehicle registered for private use which is registered or insured passengers for hire or reward, w as to drive a transport vehicle, by the provisions of the Act. It there are several vehicles which well as for carrying passenger driver is authorised to drive a ve of the fact whether it is used for of hire or reward or for carrying is what is intended by the p Amendment Act 54/1994. f the been defined in section 2(47) of th vice vehicle, a goods carriage, an e, an ublic or a private service vehicle. Publi any fined in section 2(35) to mean an ge of pted to be used for the carriage o otor rd and includes a maxicab, a moto riage d stage carriage. Goods carriag 4) to ehicle is defined in section 2(14) to ly for tructed or adapted for use solely fo ed or y motor vehicle not so constructed o ightly carriage of goods. It was rightl otor olding licence to drive light moto hicle e use, who is driving a similar vehicl rying ured, for the purpose of carrying ment d, would not require an endorsemen cle, as the same is not contemplated lated that t. It was also rightly contended tha se as hich can be used for private use a ngers for hire or reward. When a en a ctive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespectiv rpose for a private purpose or for purpos cle. It rying the goods in the said vehicle. I the he provision of the Act, and th 46. Section 10 of the Act require respect to the class of vehicles a vehicles. In one class of vehicles vehicles. If they fall in the sam endorsement is required to driv vehicle includes transport vehic vehicle licence can drive all the transport vehicles. It was pre-am amended position of Form 4 as a interpretation would be repugn motor vehicle” in section 2(21 with uires a driver to hold a licence with pe of es and not with respect to the type o ds of icles, there may be different kinds o arate same class of vehicles, no separat otor drive such vehicles. As light moto otor ehicle also, a holder of light moto uding ll the vehicles of the class including post- amended position as well the post other as amended on 28.3.2001. Any othe light pugnant to the definition of “ligh ction 2(21) and the provisions of section PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -6- 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of the forms which are in tune with the forms never intended to exc category of ‘light motor vehicles validity period of such licence transport vehicle of such class a 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport goods vehicle, medium passeng vehicle, heavy passenger motor v in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and o syllabus and rules which we hav questions which are referred to u s of 1989, other provisions and also also rwise with the provisions. Even otherwis m the exclude transport vehicles from th e, the icles’ and for light motor vehicle, th r the ence hold good and apply for th ction ss also and the expression in Section ort Vehicle’ would include medium dium oods senger motor vehicle, heavy good place tor vehicle which earlier found plac y the nd our conclusion is fortified by th r the have discussed. Thus we answer th to us thus: (i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as Act would include a trans prescribed in section 2(21 2(48). Such transport vehic definition of the light motor Act No.54/1994. f the e’ as defined in section 2(21) of th eight ransport vehicle as per the weigh 2(21) read with section 2(15) and and the vehicles are not excluded from th ment otor vehicle by virtue of Amendmen (ii) A transport vehicle and o of either of which does not e motor vehicle and also moto ‘unladen weight’ of which holder of a driving licence vehicle” as provided in secti a transport vehicle or omni which does not exceed 7500 road-roller, the “unladen w 7500 kg. That is to say, n licence is required to drive a vehicle class as enumerated section 10(2)(d) continues to 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the eight nd omnibus, the gross vehicle weigh light not exceed 7500 kg. would be a ligh otor car or tractor or a road roller oller, and ich does not exceed 7500 kg. and otor ence to drive class of “light moto drive section 10(2)(d) is competent to driv ht of mnibus, the gross vehicle weight o or or 500 kg. or a motor car or tractor o n weight” of which does not exceed xceed n the y, no separate endorsement on th otor ive a transport vehicle of light moto nder rated above. A licence issued unde t Act es to be valid after Amendment Ac n the form. (iii) The effect of the ame No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 (h) of section 10(2) whi vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), in section 10(2)(f), heavy g and “heavy passenger mot with expression ‘transport v 10(2)(e) related only to the a It does not exclude transpo section 10(2)(d) and section vehicle. f Act amendment made by virtue of Ac (e) to .1994 while substituting clauses (e) to oods which contained “medium good hicle )(e), medium passenger motor vehicl 2)(g) vy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g (2)(h) motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h ort vehicle’ as substituted in section ction only. the aforesaid substituted classes only w of nsport vehicle, from the purview o otor tion 2(41) of the Act i.e. light moto (iv) The effect of amendm “transport vehicle” is relat were substituted in the year 1 n of ndment of Form 4 by insertion o hich elated only to the categories which btain ear 1994 and the procedure to obtain PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -7- driving licence for transport vehicle” continues to be the changed and there is no r endorsement to drive trans holding licence to drive lig transport vehicle of such cl that effect.” otor port vehicle of class of “light moto the same as it was and has not been been arate no requirement to obtain separat er is ransport vehicle, and if a driver i drive e light motor vehicle, he can driv nt to h class without any endorsement to 9. When admittedly, the driver of the 9. W iving f the vehicle is having a LMV driving licence and it is valid as on the date licen date of alleged accident, then unde nder such circumstances the contention such tion of the learned counsel for th r the appellant–Insurer that the driver o appe er of the offending vehicle was no s not possessing valid licence and he is no posse ation, is not liable to pay the compensation is not acceptable.” is no 8. Recently, a Constitution of the Hon’ Rece e Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Baja Bajaj Allianz General I ral Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has the law has revisited and reaffirmed the law laid down in the j the judgment of Mukund Dewangan ngan (supra). Relevant paragraph o raph of the said judgment gment is reproduced as under:- “131. 31. Our conclusions following the a - he above discussion are as under:- (I) A driver holding a license for L under Section 10(2)(d) for vehi under 7,500 kg, is permitted to without needing additional auth of the MV Act specifically for th licensing purposes, LMVs an entirely separate classes. An ove special eligibility requirements for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rick hazardous goods. or Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class class, eight vehicles with a gross vehicle weigh hicle' ed to operate a `Transport Vehicle (2)(e) authorization under Section 10(2)(e . For or the `Transport Vehicle' class. Fo not and Transport Vehicles are no . The n overlap exists between the two. Th apply ents will however continue to appl rying rickshaws, and vehicles carrying (II) The second part of Section 3(1) of a specific requirement to driv supersede the definition of LMV MV Act. 3(1), which emphasizes the necessit drive a `Transport Vehicle,' does no LMV provided in Section 2(21) of th essity s not of the (III) The additional eligibility criter MV Rules generally for driving only to those intending to ope weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ` passenger vehicle', `heavy good vehicle'. riteria specified in the MV Act and t and apply ving `transport vehicles' would appl hicle operate vehicles with gross vehicl i.e. `medium goods vehicle', `medium dium enger goods vehicle' and `heavy passenge PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh FAO-4184-2002 2002 (O&M -8- (IV) ewangan (2017) is upheld but fo The decision in Mukund Dewa in this judgment. In the absence o reasons as explained by us in decision is not per incuriam, even i any obtrusive omission, the dec certain provisions of the MV MV Act and MV Rules were no ent. considered in the said judgment t for ce of ven if e not 9. Admittedly, the driver of the offen Adm offending Canter in the present cas nt case was holding a a valid and effective LMV lic censing V licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Farida Faridabad, which was valid from 08 om 08.12.1997 to 07.12.2017. As th As the unladen weight eight of the offending vehicle was le less than 7500 kilograms, he wa he was fully authorised rised to drive it. Therefore, finding nding of the learned Tribunal that th hat the driver lacked a v ed a valid licence is unsustainable in uently, in the eyes of law. Consequently the finding of th of the learned Tribunal qua grant o grant of recovery rights to the insure insurer against the appel appellant-owner is set aside. 10. As regards the issue of quantum of As r tum of compensation, this Court find rt finds no illegality and y and infirmity in the computation of s nal and on of same by the learned Tribunal and the same is uphel upheld. 11. As an upshot of above, the impugne As a passed pugned award dated 16.05.2001 passed by the learned rned Tribunal is modified to the exte ranting e extent that the finding qua granting recovery rights t ights to the insurer is hereby set asid et aside, meaning thereby, responden ondent No.6-insurance c ance company shall be solely liable to able to satisfy the award passed by th by the learned Tribunal. ibunal. The appeal stands allowed in n above terms. 12. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, Misc
Decision
if any, also stands disposed of. (AMARIN ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE November 04, 2 Pankaj* , 2025 ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.11 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh