Lakshmi Narayan and another v. Archana Vyas and others)

Appellant :- Archana Vyas Respondent :- Sri Lakshmi Narayan And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Salil Kumar Rai,Sudhir Kant Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- A.C.Tiwari,N.K.Srivastava,Pradhyumn Kumar Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

1. Heard Sri S.K. Dixit, learned counsel for appellant and Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 4.

2. The present first appeal from order under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed on behalf of owner of the vehicle against the judgment and award dated 3.11.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IInd Additional District Judge, Hamirpur in M.A.C.P. No.21 of 1998 (Lakshmi Narayan and another Vs. Archana Vyas and others).

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Jeep of the appellant was used as a private vehicle and driver was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The Claims Tribunal had erred in deciding the issue no.4 that Jeep was used in taxi and there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further submitted that there was no evidence before the Claims Tribunal that Jeep of appellant was used in taxi. The Insurance Company had not adduced any evidence in respect of breach of policy. The Claims Tribunal only on presumption has held that since the husband of owner was reporter in Dainik Jagaran news paper, the vehicle was used for commercial purposes for transportation of news papers and for carrying passengers. Lastly it is submitted that admittedly the Jeep was insured on the date of accident and its unladen weight is below 7,500 Kg. and is a light motor vehicle. The driving licence of Jeep driver was valid for light motor vehicle as such there was no breach of any terms and conditions of insurance policy.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Insurance Company submits that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of breach of policy is based on evidence and there is no illegality in any manner.

5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The specific issue no.4 was framed by the Claims Tribunal in respect of validity of driving licence. The Claims Tribunal while deciding the issue no.4 has recorded the finding that the offending Jeep was driven by opposite party no.4 Nawal Kishore, who had a valid driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle. There was no evidence adduced by the respondents in respect of breach of policy. The Claims Tribunal only on presumption that the Jeep was attached with the Press it was used for commercial purposes whereas there was no evidence before the Claims Tribunal that Jeep in question was plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of breach of policy is perverse and against the evidence and material which are available on record.

7. More so admittedly the insured Jeep was a light motor vehicle and driving licence was valid to drive light motor vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 1987 (1) SCC 424 has held that if the unladen weight of vehicle is less than 7,500 Kg. it is light motor vehicle and the driving licence issued to drive light motor vehicle is valid irrespective of use private or commercial. Relevant paragraph no.14 is quoted herein below:- " 14. The definition of 'light motor vehicle' makes it clear that for 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 kgs. 'Gross vehicle weight' has been defined in section 2(15). The motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as defined in section 2(48) of the Act, are also the light motor vehicle. No change has been made by Amendment Act of 54/94 in the provisions contained in sections 2(21) and 10(2)(d) relating to the light motor vehicle. The definition of 'light motor vehicle' has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with section 10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly clear that 'light motor vehicle' is also a 'transport vehicle', the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as specified in the provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as specified in section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of section 3 of the Act requires that a person in order to drive a 'transport vehicle' must have authorization. Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor, the unladen weight of which, as the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg. The insertion of 'transport vehicle' category in Section 10(2)(e) has no effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of the class of light motor vehicle. A distinction is made in the Act of heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on the basis of 'gross vehicle weight' or 'unladen weight' for heavy passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, the weight, as the case may be, exceed 12000 kg. Medium goods vehicle shall mean any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle; whereas 'medium passenger motor vehicle' means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a motorcycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle. Thus, the newly incorporated expression 'transport vehicle' in section 10(2)(e) would include only the vehicles of the category as defined in section 2(16) - heavy goods vehicle, section 2(17) - heavy passenger motor vehicle, section 2(23) – medium goods vehicle and section 2(24) medium passenger motor vehicle, and would not include the 'light motor vehicle' which means transport vehicle also of the weight specified in Section 2(21)."

8. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by appellant, who is owner of the vehicle is allowed. The judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal dated 3.11.2000 is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The appellant being owner of Jeep is exonerated from any liability.

9. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining amount before the Claims Tribunal within a period of two months from today. Any amount paid/deposited by the appellant in pursuance of award of Claims Tribunal, the same shall be paid to the appellant by the respondent Insurance Company within two months. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the deposited amount without furnishing any surety.

10. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Kpy KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Appellant :- Archana Vyas Respondent :- Sri Lakshmi Narayan And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Salil Kumar Rai,Sudhir Kant Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- A.C.Tiwari,N.K.Srivastava,Pradhyumn Kumar Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

1. Heard Sri S.K. Dixit, learned counsel for appellant and Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 4.

2. The present first appeal from order under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed on behalf of owner of the vehicle against the judgment and award dated 3.11.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IInd Additional District Judge, Hamirpur in M.A.C.P. No.21 of 1998 (Lakshmi Narayan and another Vs. Archana Vyas and others).

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Jeep of the appellant was used as a private vehicle and driver was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The Claims Tribunal had erred in deciding the issue no.4 that Jeep was used in taxi and there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further submitted that there was no evidence before the Claims Tribunal that Jeep of appellant was used in taxi. The Insurance Company had not adduced any evidence in respect of breach of policy. The Claims Tribunal only on presumption has held that since the husband of owner was reporter in Dainik Jagaran news paper, the vehicle was used for commercial purposes for transportation of news papers and for carrying passengers. Lastly it is submitted that admittedly the Jeep was insured on the date of accident and its unladen weight is below 7,500 Kg. and is a light motor vehicle. The driving licence of Jeep driver was valid for light motor vehicle as such there was no breach of any terms and conditions of insurance policy.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Insurance Company submits that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of breach of policy is based on evidence and there is no illegality in any manner.

5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The specific issue no.4 was framed by the Claims Tribunal in respect of validity of driving licence. The Claims Tribunal while deciding the issue no.4 has recorded the finding that the offending Jeep was driven by opposite party no.4 Nawal Kishore, who had a valid driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle. There was no evidence adduced by the respondents in respect of breach of policy. The Claims Tribunal only on presumption that the Jeep was attached with the Press it was used for commercial purposes whereas there was no evidence before the Claims Tribunal that Jeep in question was plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of breach of policy is perverse and against the evidence and material which are available on record.

7. More so admittedly the insured Jeep was a light motor vehicle and driving licence was valid to drive light motor vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in 1987 (1) SCC 424 has held that if the unladen weight of vehicle is less than 7,500 Kg. it is light motor vehicle and the driving licence issued to drive light motor vehicle is valid irrespective of use private or commercial. Relevant paragraph no.14 is quoted herein below:- " 14. The definition of 'light motor vehicle' makes it clear that for 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 kgs. 'Gross vehicle weight' has been defined in section 2(15). The motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as defined in section 2(48) of the Act, are also the light motor vehicle. No change has been made by Amendment Act of 54/94 in the provisions contained in sections 2(21) and 10(2)(d) relating to the light motor vehicle. The definition of 'light motor vehicle' has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with section 10(2)(d) which makes it abundantly clear that 'light motor vehicle' is also a 'transport vehicle', the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. as specified in the provision. Thus, a driver is issued a licence as per the class of vehicle i.e. light motor vehicle, transport vehicle or omnibus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as specified in section 2(21) of the Act. The provision of section 3 of the Act requires that a person in order to drive a 'transport vehicle' must have authorization. Once a licence is issued to drive light motor vehicle, it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor, the unladen weight of which, as the case may be, does not exceed 7500 kg. The insertion of 'transport vehicle' category in Section 10(2)(e) has no effect of obliterating the already defined category of transport vehicles of the class of light motor vehicle. A distinction is made in the Act of heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and medium passenger motor vehicle on the basis of 'gross vehicle weight' or 'unladen weight' for heavy passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, the weight, as the case may be, exceed 12000 kg. Medium goods vehicle shall mean any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle; whereas 'medium passenger motor vehicle' means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a motorcycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle. Thus, the newly incorporated expression 'transport vehicle' in section 10(2)(e) would include only the vehicles of the category as defined in section 2(16) - heavy goods vehicle, section 2(17) - heavy passenger motor vehicle, section 2(23) – medium goods vehicle and section 2(24) medium passenger motor vehicle, and would not include the 'light motor vehicle' which means transport vehicle also of the weight specified in Section 2(21)."

8. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by appellant, who is owner of the vehicle is allowed. The judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal dated 3.11.2000 is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The appellant being owner of Jeep is exonerated from any liability.

9. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining amount before the Claims Tribunal within a period of two months from today. Any amount paid/deposited by the appellant in pursuance of award of Claims Tribunal, the same shall be paid to the appellant by the respondent Insurance Company within two months. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the deposited amount without furnishing any surety.

10. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Kpy KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad